Argumentum ad populum

[tas8831]

I think in all the years I've done this, I've seen one person change his mind. And even that was just from a YEC to an ID creationist with an agnostic view of the age of things. The main factor in his change was his willingness to consider what we posted and do the necessary work to understand the subject. That's exceedingly rare among creationists.

I have seen... 2. 1 announced he had changed his mind (this was WAYYYY back on the old Internet Infidels forum), the other announced that what he had learned had made him reconsider his position, and that he was going to take a break from the forum to re-think it all. He never came back.

Wait - I have to add one other guy from the now defunct ARN forum. He was more of a hardcore IDist, rather than a YEC, but he was certainly supportive of their cause. I mean this guy was AGGRESSIVE - even challenged a few people to fights and that sort of thing. Then he disappeared for a few months, and curious, I googled him (or at that time, I Alta Vista'd him) and found him on a rather obscure site, arguing AGAINST ID. He even set up a Youtube channel a few years later, with a dozen or so fairly lengthy videos rebutting creationist and IDist claims. That was a major about face.

But yeah, that is pretty much it.

 

[cladking]

I know that evidence indicates that speciation is produced by reproduction isolation caused by one of SEVERAL means...,

Well, this is a start.

Because in evolutionary biology, "survival of the fittest" does NOT mean "might makes right",

So long as people believe the best specimens of every species is leading us to nirvana, utopia, and ultimate perfection then this is a dangerous belief. And it';s untrue. Humans have "devolved" for centuries and the rate is increasing. Of course there will be no speciation until there is a bottleneck probably caused by behavior.

THIS IS TODAY. This is real life, not your sad fantasy.

All things either exist or do not; one or zero. All things that come into existence spring from conditions caused by things that came before. Cause precedes effect.

Our language causes us each to think we have all the answers and the modern world has become so complex that each individual must study only some small part of it. This is what gave rise to Peers; language and complexity. Somehow we each forgot not only our history and the nature of reality but we don't see that specialists no matter how many degrees they have have no special insight into reality. Mother nature really doesn't care how educated you are she doesn't allow anyone to stare. Even animals don't get to stare at her so they create models of her in their minds and live their lives with these models.

You think reality is determined by vote so we always know everything. I think science is on the wrong track and most of what we call "science" is not and it's wrong. It's wrong because we allow it to be wrong. It's wrong because our premises are wrong.

Right after you show evidence that Homo Omnisciencis occurs outside of your fantasy world.

I'm amazed it doesn't concern anyone that virtually none of the ancient writing up until the invention of science makes sense. We just got in the habit of thinking of our ancestors as sun addled bumpkins. It makes sense, they lived near the equator often in deserts and spoke in riddles and nonsense. It doesn't concern anybody that writing was invented in 3200 BC and history starts in 2000 BC. It doesn't concern anybody that superstitious and moribund ancestors somehow managed to invent agriculture and cities and still find the time to give birth to Peers who now know everything. It doesn't concern anyone that ancient writing (Ancient Language) contradicts itself over and over.

Of course nobody seems to notice that we are each looking at a different world and we each have all the answers or a book that provides them. Our perspective is all wrong. We are looking at reality from infinite distance and through layers of reduction that are mere vocabulary rather than reality. Then when our studies become overly complex specialization forces us to vote on whether or not the things we see are real. If the vote goes against us we are supposed to just stop seeing it. Meanwhile all the sciences are stuck except Look and See Science that is thriving like nothing before.

 

[tas8831]

And, I wager, you've never seen a believer in science come to change his mind.

And become a creationist? Ha! No, that would require some major mental gymnastics.

The only such people that make such claims are creationists engaging in 'witnessing', I think they call it. And in all the cases I have looked into, I have discovered that they were creationists all along.
Steve Austin, for example - creationist geologist at the ICR. Claims studying Mt.St. Helens after the 1980 eruption convinced him that YEC is the way to go. Come to find out, he was writing YEC articles under a pseudonym as early as 1976, and possibly earlier.

Lying to gain (or more likely, embolden) converts - seems to be the YEC way.

 

[tas8831]

Well, this is a start.

Was that a joke? it seemed like it to me.

Because in evolutionary biology, "survival of the fittest" does NOT mean "might makes right",

So long as people believe the best specimens of every species is leading us to nirvana, utopia, and ultimate perfection then this is a dangerous belief. And it';s untrue. Humans have "devolved" for centuries and the rate is increasing. Of course there will be no speciation until there is a bottleneck probably caused by behavior.

Cool off-topic diversionary nonsense to avoid having to admit that you don;t actually understand what "survival of the fittest" means in biology.
This is why people get so annoyed and frustrated with you - your inability to exhibit any sort of humility to to acknowledge even trivial errors.
Why are you like this? Bad childhood?

THIS IS TODAY. This is real life, not your sad fantasy.

I deleted your off-topic grandstanding and bloviating - just more fluff to avoid having to admit that you out of your league.

cladking:

The fixed speech center is natural to humans (all animals) and the Broca's area is unique to Homo Omnisciencis because we need a translator between the analog brain and the digital speech center.

Broca's area AND Wernicke's area are "fixed" (though they generally switch hemispheres in left-handed people). The anatomical landmarks of Broca's area are even seen in non-human primates.
There is no such thing as "Homo Omnisciencis" but in your and Graham Hancock's dopey fantasies. Nobody will accept your fantasies as having merit until you present EVIDENCE of the sort that sane, educated, experienced people accept as such. This does NOT include your confident reiterations of unsupported assertions, I am happy to say.

cladking:

Show evidence of a speech center in a newborn.

Right after you show evidence that Homo Omnisciencis occurs outside of your fantasy world. Show evidence that here is a "bifurcated speech center in the middle of the brain." Show evidence that an infant decides to grow a Broca's area.


And lastly, here you are claiming that you never wrote what you had written repeatedly, all in a failed attempt at saving face once you realized you have no actual evidence for your counterfactual assertions:


You wrote, foolishly:


"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."


Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."



What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."


Fascinating!

"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."


Science cannot solve the final mystery

"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"


Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...


Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...


Argumentum ad populum

"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."




Weird, I mean, you just deleted all of that from your reply in that thread, as if it never happened - as if you never actually claimed that you never did what I documented you doing 7 times. And keep in mind - there were more, these were just the most obvious ones. I find such refusals to acknowledge and own up to such obvious fibs indicative of far-reaching character flaws. But that is just in my experience dealing with religious fanatics and the like.




You've not once provided evidence, so you are just trying to assert-away your false claims.


You are just boring now. I'll probably take a break from documenting your 'scientific' fraud and egregious, laughable errors. it is pretty tiresome.







Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

 

[cladking]

...

This is the way people understand it. Species are evolving toward perfection as the weak and unfit are weeded out. And it's not really that far from the literal meaning as biologists understand it. Are you going to deny that most biologists believe most species "improve" with change? It follows species improve when the weak, ignorant, stupid, and unadaptable are killed off.

Of course "science" knows better but there's no such thing as "science" or "species", there are only individuals and some even win the Darwin Award for "meritorious service to the human race".



This is the first time there was nothing new and not insulting in your post to quote. This post is in reference to the nature of human understanding of "survival of the fittest".

 

[Willamena]

This is the way people understand it. Species are evolving toward perfection as the weak and unfit are weeded out. And it's not really that far from the literal meaning as biologists understand it. Are you going to deny that most biologists believe most species "improve" with change? It follows species improve when the weak, ignorant, stupid, and unadaptable are killed off.

Of course "science" knows better but there's no such thing as "science" or "species", there are only individuals and some even win the Darwin Award for "meritorious service to the human race".



This is the first time there was nothing new and not insulting in your post to quote. This post is in reference to the nature of human understanding of "survival of the fittest".

Evolution doesn't favour the strong and fit, it just favours the survivor, whomever that may be. If hunting kills off all the larger elephants, the smaller weaker ones will survive.

 

[tas8831]

I fully expect that you, tas and others know things about biology and evolution that I do not and I may have to amend my views based on information and understanding that you provide. In fact, I have often removed or added details that have been brought to my attention through these discussions. I have noted some posters expressing the same views I have arrived at on my own in a much more articulated, comprehensive and succinct version and have found that useful as well.

This is what we all do - "we" referring to actual experienced and educated biologists or even intellectually honest layfolk. I have also learned some new things by reading these forums, and modified my positions as warranted after reading papers I was not previously aware of, for example.
Strangely, there are groups of people that see this behavior as a weakness, preferring, as they do, to maintain their old views regardless of evidence or reason.

I cannot understand that.

 

[tas8831]

This is how @cladking addresses his erroneous claim that "survival of the fittest" has lead to oppression of people, implying that it means 'might makes right':

This is the way people understand it. Species are evolving toward perfection as the weak and unfit are weeded out.

That is the way ignorant, Dunning-Kruger effect people "understand it", true. Such people also tend to IGNORE corrections of their erroneous beliefs/interpretations, or to maintain their erroneous positions even when corrected due to their weird beliefs/brainwashing.

I'm guessing that this is your way of saying that you will continue to misrepresent evolution because to admit error is harmful to your ego.

Pathetic.

cladking:

The fixed speech center is natural to humans (all animals) and the Broca's area is unique to Homo Omnisciencis because we need a translator between the analog brain and the digital speech center.

Broca's area AND Wernicke's area are "fixed" (though they generally switch hemispheres in left-handed people). The anatomical landmarks of Broca's area are even seen in non-human primates.
There is no such thing as "Homo Omnisciencis" but in your and Graham Hancock's dopey fantasies. Nobody will accept your fantasies as having merit until you present EVIDENCE of the sort that sane, educated, experienced people accept as such. This does NOT include your confident reiterations of unsupported assertions, I am happy to say.

cladking:

Show evidence of a speech center in a newborn.

Right after you show evidence that Homo Omnisciencis occurs outside of your fantasy world. Show evidence that here is a "bifurcated speech center in the middle of the brain." Show evidence that an infant decides to grow a Broca's area.


And lastly, here you are claiming that you never wrote what you had written repeatedly, all in a failed attempt at saving face once you realized you have no actual evidence for your counterfactual assertions:


You wrote, foolishly:



"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."


Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."



What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."


Fascinating!

"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."


Science cannot solve the final mystery

"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"


Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...


Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...


Argumentum ad populum

"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."


AND THIS ONE STILL CANNOT BRING HIMSELF TO ADMIT HE WAS IN ERROR/FIBBING TO SAVE FACE/SUFFERING FROM A SMALL STROKE? He is doing wonders for his 'reputation.'

Weird, I mean, you just deleted all of that from your reply in that thread, as if it never happened - as if you never actually claimed that you never did what I documented you doing 7 times. And keep in mind - there were more, these were just the most obvious ones. I find such refusals to acknowledge and own up to such obvious fibs indicative of far-reaching character flaws. But that is just in my experience dealing with religious fanatics and the like.




You've not once provided evidence, so you are just trying to assert-away your false claims.

 

[tas8831]

we humans are not healthy
not of body
or of mind

You think "fitness" refers to like... working out and eating right-type fitness?

You see that on one of those 'science programs' you talk about but can never remember the name of?

 

[tas8831]

I've never heard of this and a quick wiki search yields nothing.

Wow - a science expert like you only searches wiki?

It's curious that your number coincides with my dating for the arrival of Homo Sapiens.

Must mean you are totally correct...

Can you point me toward research or confirmation? Perhaps, it wasn't mutation at all that created the first humans.

This is RICH coming from the guy that NEVER provides evidence for anything....

 

[ecco]

It really goes like this... The reality is, God is. ... That way, we find reality - that God is.

GodDidIt, GodDidIt, GodDidIt.

Oh Great Wise one, please tell us why those streaks come down from the heavens when it rains.
GodDidIt.

Oh Great Wise one, please tell us why that hot lava comes from the mountain.
GodDidIt.

Oh Great Wise one, please tell us why those locusts eat all our crops.
GodDidIt.

Oh Great Wise one, please tell us where we all came from.
GodDidIt.

That was the story 6000 years ago. Why has your education and knowledge not caught up?

 

[ecco]

have seen the news lately?
any health reports in the form of statistics?

how are you....doing?

I'm doing just fine.

 

[ecco]

You appear to be misrepresenting what atheists say. They do not state that there is no God.

I do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do.

You are correct. I should have said that not all of them say this.

 

[ecco]

I have seen... 2. 1 announced he had changed his mind (this was WAYYYY back on the old Internet Infidels forum)

On another site (possibly Internet Infidels) there was a section where atheists could post the road to their conversion to atheism. There were quite a few.

 

[ecco]

You are correct. I should have said that not all of them say this.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks for that.

The link is remarkably frank ─ when choosing between biblical creation and evolution, choose the one that's more emotionally comfortable, not the one that's objectively true.

And IMO, that's all one needs to know when attempting a discussion or debate of evolution with a Jehovah's Witness.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have seen... 2. 1 announced he had changed his mind (this was WAYYYY back on the old Internet Infidels forum), the other announced that what he had learned had made him reconsider his position, and that he was going to take a break from the forum to re-think it all. He never came back.

Wait - I have to add one other guy from the now defunct ARN forum. He was more of a hardcore IDist, rather than a YEC, but he was certainly supportive of their cause. I mean this guy was AGGRESSIVE - even challenged a few people to fights and that sort of thing. Then he disappeared for a few months, and curious, I googled him (or at that time, I Alta Vista'd him) and found him on a rather obscure site, arguing AGAINST ID. He even set up a Youtube channel a few years later, with a dozen or so fairly lengthy videos rebutting creationist and IDist claims. That was a major about face.

But yeah, that is pretty much it.

Well, I suppose as few as those cases are, they're still triple what I've seen!

 

[cladking]

Wow - a science expert like you only searches wiki?


This is RICH coming from the guy that NEVER provides evidence for anything....

I'm one of those rare people who don't know everything. For instance if I knew a little neurology I wouldn't assume I'm an expert in biology, evolution, and epistemology. When I don't know something I use dictionaries, encyclopedias, and, yes, even wiki. Even though wiki is always wrong and science is wrong I still need to know the basics of everything I think about. How does the nature of the wiring of the brain relate to language, for instance? You simply believe you can look anything up so it follows you know everything. You don't look up what you need to and you don't understand that everything is founded in belief and metaphysics so you understand nothing and know everything.

Good luck with that. There's nothing "wrong" with that it's just that this is the kind of thinking that would still have us all living in caves. There are new discoveries every year because even theory is stuck we still have fancy instruments (that Egyptologists refuse to use) and there are new materials and new technology. There is now an internet that allows millions to do research that was impossible just a few years ago. You don't see it but there are dozens of new hypotheses that can get science unstuck and perhaps headed in the right direction.

All of logic and reality is my evidence. I am merely looking at it from a new perspective. You can keep playing words games if you choose but I tend to ignore semantics.

 

[cladking]

Evolution doesn't favour the strong and fit, it just favours the survivor, whomever that may be. If hunting kills off all the larger elephants, the smaller weaker ones will survive.

Indeed. And my contention is that so long as you don't cause a population bottleneck of healthy adults you will not cause significant species change even over the long term by this means.

Transformation of species tends to occur when there are very few healthy adults and they share an unusual behavior.