Scientists are wrong all the time, and that’s fantastic

Hotair.com ^ | 2-27-15

[Hostage]

Yes you do type a lot and confuse things greatly.

Try toning it down and having an intelligent discussion rather than an hysterical rant.

Focus on a simple example say sickle cell anemia, its causes and the effects of natural selection on the prevalence of resistant haplotypes.

Depending on the quality of your response I may or may not respond.

[Dark Knight]

Feynman was the man. Science is just an explanation of nature. It is a tool for understanding and ultimately manipulation of nature.

Einstein was proven useful (notice not truthful) with the atomic bomb. Einstein also set back science as I understand it, a long ways with thought experiments. His was ultimately proven more useful than others, but in biology thought experiments have overtaken real testing. Niche fulfillment testing started recently...after almost 200 years? The birds that changed were posited to be different species...but did interbreed while the biologists weren’t looking...embarrassed or more private than the thought experiments gave credit to.

ToE’s tend to be crappily tested hypotheses that ignore testing in favor of argument. I “believe” most of this will fall away, because biologists will be crowded out by hard science scientists that need real world results that can only be accessed by real world experimentation and manipulation.

And I said that without using the term creationism.

Although I think it is hilarious that when we start actually manipulating what may be evolution, we will actually be fulfilling the role of a creator.

DK

[WhiskeyX]

“Yes you do type a lot and confuse things greatly.”

Any confusion is in your own mind and its apparent inability to reason in a logical manner, given the way in which you contradict using such an array of logical fallacies.

“Try toning it down and having an intelligent discussion rather than an hysterical rant.”

LOL, so now you are dreaming up an imaginary “hysterical rant” to make yourself look important and change the subject.

“Focus on a simple example say sickle cell anemia, its causes and the effects of natural selection on the prevalence of resistant haplotypes.”

Until you can focus on the previous question you are trying so hard to avoid, there is no need to start another subject you would likely also avoid in the end. The previous question is quite straightforward. Do you or do you not still claim that Evolution (meaning current evolutionary theory) says Humans are descended from Apes?

“Depending on the quality of your response I may or may not respond.”

Of course you won’t give a straightforward response, because the Truth is something you are laboring hard to avoid.

[WhiskeyX]

“That’s really the central thing I’ve been saying to you over a entire series of posts. Look above and try to make the claim that you haven’t been critiquing a whole array of terminology.”

The natural outcome of making a point by point rational review and critique of the statements made by Hostage is and must be by definition the “critiquing a whole array of terminology.”

“Since then you have been hammering ME because ‘the huge differences between the Apes you commented about’ and “your comment about the vocabulary, which was about the ‘Apes’ and you demand that I take a position one way or other on the claim “Humans are descended from ‘Apes’.”

You chimed in with your own criticism of my comments because I was criticizing Hostage for his statements of logical fallacies, many of which were logical fallacies due in the first part to his use of an erroneous vocabulary. One of his most egregious false statements illustrating his apparent inability to understand and use the scientific vocabulary and scientific concepts was his statement alleging “Evolution” (meaning current evolutionary theory) proposes the descent of Humans from Apes. Given the obvious fact evolutionary theory does not propose the descent of Humans from Apes, using such an obvious error as an easily discerned example of Hostage’s erroneous and irrational argument made his statement the best and most immediate flaw to focus attention upon.

When you came along to chime in about my criticism of his misuse of the vocabulary, it was only natural to narrow the focus of my response to you to the very same egregious and immediate example of his error.

“For me, the word “A-P-E” is not terribly important.”

The question of whether or not the word is important to you is a separate question and change of subject away from the immediate question about whether or not Hostage’s comment about Humans being descended from Apes was an example of an erroneous and false statement regarding “Evolution?”

“I think Evolution is bad science from start to finish.”

You have repeatedly stated what you think as an opinion, but so far you have failed to support what you think with actual observational evidence produced by the use of the scientific method. You were given the opportunity to do so with respect to Hostage’s comment claiming Evolution said Humans descended from Apes. Since this is a rather straightforward question of whether or not evolutionary theory makes such a claim at all in the first place, your comments claiming “Evolution” is bad science can be evaluated for their validity if your response was based in part upon Hostage’s claim Evolution proposed that Humans being descended from Apes. Rather than assume you agree or disagree with Hostage’s comment about what Evolution says about Humans descending from Apes, I exercised the courtesy of asking you what your position is with respect to his use of that part of the vocabulary. So far, you have avoided answering that question and thereby avoided disclosure of whether or not you base your thinking about Evolution being a bad science upon a belief that Evolution says humans are descended from Apes.

“All I’m saying is that you haven’t been discussing science or evolution – you just focus on terminology and claim that your understanding is at a higher level than others. Which is what Marxists do.”

Anyone who has the smallest understanding of science and logical reasoning knows that learning the language and terminology of natural science is a mandatory first step towards gaining a comprehension of the scientific concepts that are to be communicated. Lacking a correct understanding of the terminology perforce means the scientific concepts cannot be communicated correctly or accurately. Perhaps ignorance of such matters is in part why you falsely state “you haven’t been discussing science or evolution” when in fact such topics as whether or not “Evolution”, meaning current evolutionary theory, proposes Humans descended from Apes is clear and obvious proof I am “discussing science or evolution” despite your hampering such efforts to discuss them through your non-cooperation.

Your comment accusing me of using the tactics of “Marxists” is exactly contrary to reality and better represents your own behavior as we watch you use smear tactics as you proclaim your “beliefs” and what you “think” while carefully avoiding a discussion of scientific evidence that could validate or invalidate what you “believe” and “think”. If you truly want to have a discussion about whether or not “Evolution” is bad science, you can begin by addressing the validity or invalidity of Hostage’s statement about what “Evolution” claims or does not claim in regard to Human descent from Apes.

“For me, Evolution is really just politics, not science.”

You can also believe or think Alice in Wonderland is a description of reality all you want, but that would not mean anyone else should regard such belief and thought as having anything to do with reality, rational behavior, or with natural science.

“It’s like Marx’s ‘scientific socialism’ and it’s like ‘global warming’. Politics — not science.”

Unfortunately for your argument and your beliefs, “the “Global Warming” issue is a Marxist style of pseudo-science using falsified data and experiment whereas evolutionary theory is based upon real science and real scientific evidence subject to the kind of independent experimental verification which “global Warming” never has and never will be able to accomplish.