Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[ImmortalFlame]

I did a search on it with Google Scholar. Most of the results are about disagreements between researchers. Do researchers have mock debates with each other where call their own views “scientific” and “evidence based,” and opposing views “unscientific,” and call each other “science deniers”? I would need to see some examples of how they use the words “science” and “evidence” in discussing their disagreements with each other in professional journals and conferences.

Equating disagreements between experts in a given field and laymen is pretty fallacious. You cannot compare conflicting research carried out by scientists with debate between people defending the very basic principles of science from people who are rejecting them.

And scientists regularly do call ideas that qualify as unscientific "unscientific", yes. It's not about respectful debate, it's about calling a spade a spade. I don't understand what the issue is.

 

[Polymath257]

I did a search on it with Google Scholar. Most of the results are about disagreements between researchers. Do researchers have mock debates with each other where call their own views “scientific” and “evidence based,” and opposing views “unscientific,” and call each other “science deniers”? I would need to see some examples of how they use the words “science” and “evidence” in discussing their disagreements with each other in professional journals and conferences.

Why do you call them 'mock' debates? But no, they tend not to call the views of other scientists 'unscientific', although they very much do dispute the quality of the evidence, the reasoning, etc. That is sort of how science works, after all. Also, for those aspects that are considered 'settled', there needs to be a *lot* of new evidence to bring the topic back into debate.

But, calling someone 'un-scientific' who is NOT a scientist who disagrees with the vast majority of scientists and who doesn't have evidence to back up their position seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[Jim]

Why do you call them 'mock' debates? But no, they tend not to call the views of other scientists 'unscientific', although they very much do dispute the quality of the evidence, the reasoning, etc. That is sort of how science works, after all. Also, for those aspects that are considered 'settled', there needs to be a *lot* of new evidence to bring the topic back into debate.

But, calling someone 'un-scientific' who is NOT a scientist who disagrees with the vast majority of scientists and who doesn't have evidence to back up their position seems perfectly reasonable.

How can I find some journal articles on topics that researchers disagree about, that aren’t behind paywalls?

 

[Jose Fly]

I’m denying all the claims that people make of knowing anything, in public debating, including everything that they think they know, that they call “science.” I’m saying the whole idea of believing things because they’re “scientific” or “evidence based” is wrong. I’m saying that in public debating, using “science” and “evidence” is as fallacious as using religious scriptures. That what I mean by saying that I’m denying science. I’m denying the validity of all arguments from “science” and “evidence,” in public debating.

Well that's weird.

Anyways, you're still on the hook to substantiate your accusation that Larget et al. were dishonest and irresponsible in their 2016 paper.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here are some examples of misleading evidence that scientists believed for decades --The misleading evidence that fooled scientists for decades

Still waiting for an answer.....do you think the belief that the earth is flat, doesn't move, and is orbited by the rest of the universe is deserving of respect?

 

[YoursTrue]

I’m denying all the claims that people make of knowing anything, in public debating, including everything that they think they know, that they call “science.” I’m saying the whole idea of believing things because they’re “scientific” or “evidence based” is wrong. I’m saying that in public debating, using “science” and “evidence” is as fallacious as using religious scriptures. That what I mean by saying that I’m denying science. I’m denying the validity of all arguments from “science” and “evidence,” in public debating.

Right now in this point in my life, I am at least sympathetic with your view.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, it depends somewhat on what you mean by 'nothing'. If what you mean is 'a state of the universe where there are no particles, no space, and no time', but where the laws of physics still apply, then it is quite possible for something (the universe) to come from nothing (that state).

The point about 'negative energy' is that gravity is, in essence, a curvature of spacetime. And in the equations for energy conservation (which includes mass), the curvature also appears, but as a negative contribution. Furthermore, the relevant equation says that the total energy plus the energy of curvature is zero. In other words, it all cancels out.

This has been recognized for a long time and is the basis of many speculations of how the 'pure vacuum state' where there are no particles, space, or time can lead, through quantum tunneling to a state where there *are* particles, space, and time and with curvature to offset the energy balance. Such tunneling is allowed in quantum mechanics and *is* an example of 'something coming from nothing'.

But, ultimately, this is speculation. it is consistent with the physical laws as we know them, but there is no way currently to test this in detail. And it is far from being the only speculation that deals with these matters that is consistent with our understanding of physics.

The one thing that we do have to re-evaluate is the dogma that 'something cannot come from nothing'.

Now that you mention it, is nothing really nothing? Because I remember one teacher saying in reality, although math has a sign zero, there really is no zero. And so maybe later we'll continue this conversation.

 

[Jim]

Well that's weird.

Anyways, you're still on the hook to substantiate your accusation that Larget et al. were dishonest and irresponsible in their 2016 paper.

False. I made no such allegation.

 

[Jose Fly]

False. I made no such allegation.

*sigh* Do you have short-term memory issues (I ask in all seriousness)?

In your post #1754, you stated specifically in regard to the Larget et al. paper: "I don’t believe that it was done honestly and responsibly". So again, you are on the hook to substantiate your accusation that Larget et al. were dishonest and irresponsible in their 2016 paper.

 

[Jim]

*sigh* Do you have short-term memory issues (I ask in all seriousness)?

In your post #1754, you stated specifically in regard to the Larget et al. paper: "I don’t believe that it was done honestly and responsibly". So again, you are on the hook to substantiate your accusation that Larget et al. were dishonest and irresponsible in their 2016 paper.

You can call that an accusation if you want to. Help yourself, knock yourself out. If you want to vilify me truthfully, call me a science denier.

 

[Jose Fly]

You can call that an accusation if you want to. Help yourself, knock yourself out. If you want to vilify me truthfully, call me a science denier.

?????? Dude, I have done my level best to be patient with your....um....shall we say, "unique" behavior....but I'm just about at my limit. This latest episode with you is just plain bizarre. You post that you don't believe the work described in the Larget et al. paper "was done honestly and responsibly", and now that you're challenged to back up that accusation, THIS is your reply?

I'm betting this isn't the first time you've heard this in your life.....you are a very odd person.

 

[Jim]

Can anyone tell me how to find research articles on topics where there is disagreement between researchers, that are not behind paywalls?

 

[YoursTrue]

Equating disagreements between experts in a given field and laymen is pretty fallacious. You cannot compare conflicting research carried out by scientists with debate between people defending the very basic principles of science from people who are rejecting them.

And scientists regularly do call ideas that qualify as unscientific "unscientific", yes. It's not about respectful debate, it's about calling a spade a spade. I don't understand what the issue is.

It's almost like being on a jury. Sometimes the evidence doesn't make sense to the juror. Sometimes the evidence is questionable, as in hearsay or assumption, if you know what I mean. That is one reason I will not be on a jury.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's almost like being on a jury. Sometimes the evidence doesn't make sense to the juror. Sometimes the evidence is questionable, as in hearsay or assumption, if you know what I mean. That is one reason I will not be on a jury.

Yet the concept of scientific evidence makes it easy to at least answer that there definitely is scientific evidence for common descent. A person could say that he is not convinced, but at that point he is denying Maury Povich.

 

[Jim]

It's almost like being on a jury. Sometimes the evidence doesn't make sense to the juror. Sometimes the evidence is questionable, as in hearsay or assumption, if you know what I mean. That is one reason I will not be on a jury.

I thought of a different way of explaining what I think will happen, and might be happening already, out of public view. People doing research with and without a premise of common ancestry will encourage and support each other, and learn from each other. Just now I realized that there is funding and encouragement for research that is not restricted by a premise of common ancestry. That may or may all be restricted by some religious beliefs, but even if it is, it still brings more diversity to the research.

 

[Bear Wild]

I thought of a different way of explaining what I think will happen, and might be happening already, out of public view. People doing research with and without a premise of common ancestry will encourage and support each other, and learn from each other. Just now I realized that there is funding and encouragement for research that is not restricted by a premise of common ancestry. That may or may all be restricted by some religious beliefs, but even if it is, it still brings more diversity to the research.

So what don't you like about the concept of common descent? Not talking about evidence right now but what it is that bothers you about the idea?

 

[Jim]

So what don't you like about the concept of common descent? Not talking about evidence right now but what it is that bothers you about the idea?

Nothing bothers me about the idea. The premise of common ancestry doesn’t bother me at all. It looks to me like it has been used very fruitfully and beneficially, like the axiom of one and only one line through a given point parallel to a given line, the wave model of light transmission, the planetary model of the atom, the Mercator projection, and Thevenin and Norton equivalent circuits. What I’m objecting to is stigmatizing people who don’t believe it, and defiling the name of science by wrapping it around spit-wads.

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought of a different way of explaining what I think will happen, and might be happening already, out of public view. People doing research with and without a premise of common ancestry will encourage and support each other, and learn from each other. Just now I realized that there is funding and encouragement for research that is not restricted by a premise of common ancestry. That may or may all be restricted by some religious beliefs, but even if it is, it still brings more diversity to the research.

There are some scientists well qualified that no longer go along with common thoughts about evolution. And they do acknowledge, as you seem to be saying, that if a scientist does not go along with the majority view of evolution, it means trouble for them. You may see that someone who is a staunch believer in evolution (evidently the Darwinian kind), will ridicule and put down the qualifications of those scientists who allow themselves to openly dissent. Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are some scientists well qualified that no longer go along with common thoughts about evolution. And they do acknowledge, as you seem to be saying, that if a scientist does not go along with the majority view of evolution, it means trouble for them. You may see that someone who is a staunch believer in evolution (evidently the Darwinian kind), will ridicule and put down the qualifications of those scientists who allow themselves to openly dissent. Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

That was refuted over ten years ago. Why would you refer to a dishonest article such as that? Would you like to go over why that is from a lying source?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yet the concept of scientific evidence makes it easy to at least answer that there definitely is scientific evidence for common descent. A person could say that he is not convinced, but at that point he is denying Maury Povich.

lol...Anyway, I don't like seeing all that fighting and "truth-testing" etc.