Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:00 am

Walker[/quote wrote:...

Examine the doubts of Darwin rather than the certainties of his acolytes.

Why am I not surprised you are a creationist.

I am a critical mind. You are a master at baiting.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:07 am

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:00 am

Walker[/quote wrote:...

Examine the doubts of Darwin rather than the certainties of his acolytes.

Why am I not surprised you are a creationist.

I am a critical mind. You are a master at baiting.

What doubts of Darwin?

If he had no doubts, he was no scientist.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:07 am I am a critical mind. You are a master at baiting.

I agree. I would stress master there. Baiting critical minds couldn't be more counter-philosophical.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:14 am If he had no doubts, he was no scientist.

I agree. I would stress scientist there. Not doubting one's won judgements couldn't be more counter-scientific.

Walker wrote:I am a critical mind. ...

No you're not you're a creationist so by definition critical is not the word.

You are a master at baiting.

And you're a godbothering wanker.

davidm wrote:What doubts of Darwin?

The book written by creationists to try and pretend they aren't so they can teach their godbothering guff as science in the US.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:09 am

davidm wrote:What doubts of Darwin?

The book written by creationists to try and pretend they aren't so they can teach their godbothering guff as science in the US.

I'm aware that there is a (bogus) book by a creationist entitled "Darwin's Doubt." I was just trying to find out if his "Darwin's doubts" was referring to that (bogus) book. I imagine he was referring to that (bogus) book.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:56 am

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:09 am

davidm wrote:What doubts of Darwin?

The book written by creationists to try and pretend they aren't so they can teach their godbothering guff as science in the US.

I'm aware that there is a (bogus) book by a creationist entitled "Darwin's Doubt." I was just trying to find out if his "Darwin's doubts" was referring to that (bogus) book. I imagine he was referring to that (bogus) book.

He never heard of it.

The misquote is yet further confirmation that youse twoins hear what you need to hear.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:04 am

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:56 am

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:09 am The book written by creationists to try and pretend they aren't so they can teach their godbothering guff as science in the US.

I'm aware that there is a (bogus) book by a creationist entitled "Darwin's Doubt." I was just trying to find out if his "Darwin's doubts" was referring to that (bogus) book. I imagine he was referring to that (bogus) book.

He never heard of it.

The misquote is yet further confirmation that youse twoins hear what you need to hear.

Referring to yourself in the third person now?

What misquote?

If you weren't referring to the bogus creationist book "Darwin's Doubt," then what "Darwin's doubts" were you referring to? After all, you advised us to study these doubts, so perhaps you could share what you think we should study.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:45 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:33 pm I have no serious doubt that evolution occurs, and I am entirely confident that natural selection, by whatever empirically verifiable genetic mechanism, is the most compelling explanation.

I don't doubt evolution occurs either. This is the point missed by a few people here that suspended discussion by flooding this with posts calling me creationist. It's their opinion and they're entitled to be wrong (not only here), the problem is the polluting nature of their flood.

The problem is that I think natural selection is a flawed theory and is supported by circularity not only in their tenets but also in its observational nature.

So, if I understand you correctly, you "don't doubt evolution occurs", but you "think natural selection is a flawed theory". Fair enough; do you have abetter one?

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:45 pmScience isn't theorizing what you observe.

Not sure what you mean by this. If you take a hard nosed instrumentalist (shut up and calculate) approach, then no; the theories you generate to explain the phenomena are irrelevant. Some prominent physicists, Steve Weinberg and Stephen Hawking, for example (dunno about biologists) dismiss any such speculation as philosophy; and then go and do it anyway. Very few scientists, in practice, are as instrumentally pure to the degree they would have us believe.
On the other hand, if you mean to say that science isn't theorising about future observations, it is generally accepted that one of the tests of a theory is its success in doing precisely that. Which perhaps is what you mean by this:

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:45 pmIt's making hypothesis based on what you observe and on your inferences and that can be falsified empirically.

Again though, that is simply to take Popper's Conjectures and Refutations as definitive. Which it isn't.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:45 pmI accept mitochondrial endosymbiosis, as I told before many times, and I'm not as demanding on its evidence as with Darwin because endosymbiosis makes sense, something natural selection doesn't.

As I keep saying, biology isn't my field and I have no idea what mitochondrial endosymbiosis is. Couple of things though. Firstly: why is mitochondrial endosymbiosis in opposition to natural selection? Again; what is your better theory? By what mechanism do you explain mito-thingummybob?
Secondly; the fact that anyone accepts an hypothesis because it "makes sense" is never a good sign. More often than not, it simply means they mangled it into a shape they can hammer into their own world-view.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:45 pmThe examples given here, of which David's nylon bacteria is paradigmatic, demonstrate clearly how nonsense natural selection is.

How? What is your better explanation?

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:45 pmI humanly understand how ashamed they feel to accept that, and Psychology can explain their behavior.

This smacks of an appeal to authority. I think you are assuming a great deal of psychology, by proclaiming that it can back up your interpretation. I rather think psychology might have more success explaining why you interpret things as you do.

PauloL, I may have missed it, in which case by all means direct me to it, but where is your exposition of your alternative to natural selection? How, in your view, does evolution work if not by natural selection?

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:45 pm The examples given here, of which David's nylon bacteria is paradigmatic, demonstrate clearly how nonsense [sic] natural selection is.

At this point I can't tell whether you are a liar or an idiot. No matter; you are boring. Go troll elsewhere.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:44 am

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:04 am

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:56 am

I'm aware that there is a (bogus) book by a creationist entitled "Darwin's Doubt." I was just trying to find out if his "Darwin's doubts" was referring to that (bogus) book. I imagine he was referring to that (bogus) book.

He never heard of it.

The misquote is yet further confirmation that youse twoins hear what you need to hear.

Referring to yourself in the third person now?

What misquote?

If you weren't referring to the bogus creationist book "Darwin's Doubt," then what "Darwin's doubts" were you referring to? After all, you advised us to study these doubts, so perhaps you could share what you think we should study.

"If" ?

Wrong again.

Since, or because. Not, if.

No doubt not even Darwin was so full of Darwin.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:03 am

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:44 am

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:04 am
He never heard of it.

The misquote is yet further confirmation that youse twoins hear what you need to hear.

Referring to yourself in the third person now?

What misquote?

If you weren't referring to the bogus creationist book "Darwin's Doubt," then what "Darwin's doubts" were you referring to? After all, you advised us to study these doubts, so perhaps you could share what you think we should study.

"If" ?

Wrong again.

Since, or because. Not, if.

You haven't answered the question. What Darwin's doubts do you advise that we study? Please be specific.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:08 am

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:03 am

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:44 am

Referring to yourself in the third person now?

What misquote?

If you weren't referring to the bogus creationist book "Darwin's Doubt," then what "Darwin's doubts" were you referring to? After all, you advised us to study these doubts, so perhaps you could share what you think we should study.

"If" ?

Wrong again.

Since, or because. Not, if.

You haven't answered the question. What Darwin's doubts do you advise that we study? Please be specific.

Not we.

You.

You're the expert. What doubts has your critical mind discovered in your parroting, if any?

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:18 amYou're the expert.

Actually, it is you that claims to have some knowledge. It is for you to demonstrate the source. If you can't do that, you are not even parroting, you are just making stuff up.