I trust your evidence for this will be forthcoming. Bonus points for other possible design influences, such as extraterrestrial life, and by what criteria you are dismissing one with a certainty you can't apply to the other.
Oh, who am I kidding. You're devoid of honest thought. Evolution can go ahead and eliminate you.
Uh, yeah, not really. More precisely, they're selective interpretation.
"I exist, so I must exist for a reason!"
"If you didn't exist, didn't have the brain power to think, etc, you wouldn't be in a position to ask the question. Ergo, all you're proving is you're conscious."
"Ah, but consciousness is proof!"
"Proof that you have consciousness. Just like any other being that had or will have consciousness."
Not sure if you are unaware, equivocating, or simply intellectually dishonest, but none of this speaks to what "plausible" simply means. For one, "plausible" definitely does not mean "proof". Fix that, and we can proceed.
Really, the absurdity of any notion of directed evolution or ID comes down to, you know, the fact that there's all manner of life on Earth that has nothing to do with humanity. Why mice AND rats? Because they fit an ecological niche? Sounds to me more like begging the question. And as much as it can go both ways, evolution is a testable theory that doesn't try to stuff in an overreaching "why" that presupposes an external entity that rigged the game JUST for humans. Beyond the sheer arrogance of it, the fact that humans will eventually be evolved away means the only that perhaps can be gained from that arrogance is a written legacy so the next species will see how stupid it was.
The ecosystem has nothing to do with humanity's needs? Really? This is your argument? Perhaps you'd like to propose another construct that would be more "logical" to what you presuppose the objectives are. As for the blank assertion that humans will eventually be evolved away, that is evidence-free on a level that IC isn't close to approaching. But, let's just summarily deal with the fact that you cannot live a single day without implicitly presupposing humans have a privileged metaphysical status (and please, don't fail to understand what the 2500-year-old branch of philosophy called "metaphysics" is, and think it's basically an episode of Ghost Hunters), starting with the legal system within which you exist. Your daily life refutes you for me.
Well, death actually. Evolution occurs at, you know, millions of years time scales (well, it's more fixed to generations, but for humans that's the scope of millions of years). And like I said, the only reason to have these discussions is really to hopefully have enough copies of something written so the future species will not rest so heavily on their own hubris. Because it's clear humans don't really comprehend their limited existence as a whole and don't really want to have a real impact in the universe. If we did, we wouldn't so proudly stand on our molehill and act like king of Mount Everest (and that, to scale, is such a gross mischaracterization of the size of the galaxy let alone the universe, but then humans don't do well with really big things (or large time scales)).
Evolution acts at large time scales, and short ones. The core mechanism happens with particular cases of natural selection of a particular organism. Or perhaps more specifically, natural deselection. More specifically, of you. Where are you deriving this strange bifurcation of evolution that long-term things are evolution, and the short-term events by which it occurs, are not? It might feel more comfortable to you personally, but it's scientifically erroneous. And science (specifically, philosophical naturalism) is all you get to reference, by choice.
But, then, I guess we should all be thankful that so many humans are so self-centered. Otherwise, you'd likely be one that'd support Von Neumann probes and then the only thing Earth would be known for billions of years from now is being the king of spacecraft SPAM.
At least we ended on a truly bizarre and funny note. Let's do that next time, too.
You might say that, and the only thing remaining would be to back it.
Let's start with me simply noting that I comprehend the natural quite well, eh, I'll go ahead and say better than you, and leaving you to show otherwise. That will require some actual content or an actual argument.
You see, I'm not one of those pushing the "religion versus science" false dichotomy who hope to damage religion and only end up damaging science. A frequent occurrence of people overextending their arguments with bias-driven pseudoscience being presented in the name of science.
No, it's simply false to say that the market is a determinant of value, or that the 5 dollars is value you have "created".
Simple math, helpful to encouraging deriving totally erroneous conclusions.
In reality, the creator of the bike, created the value. That is spread out over a great number of historical engineers and scientists, credited and uncredited. You've simply profited by moving the value around.
If you want a more formal statement of this, in fact the middleman's profit is not derived from "the market", but rather a differential in knowledge of the perfect market. If in fact, another person would sell an equivalent bike at a $1 profit, the "value" could equally be said to be $1, rather than $5. That's because your notion of anecdotal market exchanges determining the value is entirely wrong--those values are in fact determined largely by taking advantage of people's ignorance of the market.
If someone takes a job at $10000/year for which the actual perfect market value would be $50000/year, doing identical work, it does not mean that the former person's work is in fact only worth $10000/year, it means he is being taken advantage of by someone with a broader knowledge of the market. And that knowledge does not create value. The guy doing the work is creating it. And executives know this clearly, and it is their primary source of income. As it is for the entirety of the financial sector. Income, not value creation, which is absent from their involvement in the situation.
I don't understand. Both directed evolution and ID are plausible positions. After you claim they are not, even when you invoke the conclusions of lawyers whose scientific credentials are assured by wearing a black robe and sitting on an impressive raised platform, it will remain exactly as plausible as it in fact is.
Complexity is evidence. You'll claim it is not, that will be your interpretation of the evidence and not in any way affect the reality it is evidence. That such complexity could -also- be explained in another way, again, in no way alters it from being evidence of my stance. It merely becomes evidence for more than one stance.
Anyway, I've posted peer-reviewed evidence for a "director" before, but that isn't really necessary as you have no compelling basis, nor even any reasonable basis to conclude, that no biological design has happened over those billions of non-observable years.
I am not trolling. If I stopped, you just get eliminated by evolution and you become completely and permanently irrelevant. According to you yourself. Hopefully that will make you feel less tired.
Don't blame me that your position has no possible derivable benefit, and mine does, and that according to you yourself, what your opinion may be could not possibly be of any even theoretical value. Kudos on "STFU" as an airtight scientific and philosphical argument, though.
In response to your other comments on divergence and speciation, you should know that diverged groups can be the same species. When populations separate they then adapt to their environment as well as drifting genetically. It is this difference, the distance between the groups in terms of DNA, that is the divergence. In general we consider something a different species if it is mostly unwilling to interbreed or sufficiently inefficient at producing fertile offspring that gene transfer is suppressed (both is unnecessary) but it takes a fair amount of genetic distance for this to happen, so the point of divergence is before the point of separation into separate species. Because this change happens at a roughly constant rate we can with care estimate the time in the past when two groups separated by calculating from the divergence (but this is not the speciation point which is why they specifically use "diverged" as a word).All of these are much more messy in reality than we might like, for example even as groups become more genetically distinct there can still be occasional genetic exchange due to interbreeding, and the species/sub-species line is blurred but despite the noise the data is still good for an approximate answer.
I do think I should say to this as well, that it seems you are correcting my notion that the criteria is rather vague with "You idiot! It's way vaguer even than that!"
The same is true of felines and then again for domestic cats. We label according to a process which over time broadens what a category means but can never fully rewrite its origin or skip across groups. Thus the features that can be in these groups and subgroups are fixed for us to discover, not just pulled out of a hat.
Okay, but the category you cannot rewrite is also just as arbitrary, and pulled out of a hat.
You complying with them is, to all appearances, simply dogma and a mandate never to correct yourself, even if scientifically required, lest you "rock the boat" of your predecessor's arbitrary names and categories.
Of course no animals break this pattern. You've made it so by fiat, such that anything you add unfalsifiably fits the categorization system that was, to be frank, made up. Because your methodology is constructed to ensure that.
I am hopeful that cladistics will provide an objective methodology here that is sorely needed, but outside of that, what are you saying that contradicts my notion that this is all an arbitrary construct of your own (well, rather, "biology scientist clubhouse") creation?
The person making the original statement as a statement of science, exactly as I've said. My statements as to what I am "happy" about, like my preferences in music, are neither offered as scientific claims nor need be addressed within that domain.
If you're using "make" as a term for earning money through wages, then most rich people "make" money. They may also make more money by investing money wisely, whether it be stocks, starting businesses, etc... If you think that rich people "get their hands on" money by just stealing it from the poor, you're delusional.
As delusional as imagining I said something I didn't, as you just did? But no, gaining from the creation of value, such as the financial sector does, is not creation of value. If you want to make an argument that it facilitates it, fine, and appropriate relevance (and compensation) for this could be discussed.
Can a scientist/engineer/lawyer organize and run a huge company composed of lawyers, engineers, and scientists?
Yes. One requires extensive knowledge and by definition the ability to manifest value-add directly by that knowledge, that knowledge being the core relevant thing to a company doing it. The part distinctive to the executive role requires a $50 filing of Articles of Incorporation and pre-existing access to wealth or "contacts" for it. There's no question here that in terms of -ability-, the people with the skills can do that, the reverse is definitely not necessarily true. If we are discussion CEO's whose income is validated -insofar as- they are acting as one of the other categories, that is not contrary to my premise. Mostly, however, the market is determined simply by inequality of opportunity, and the business structures derived directly from that--having little to do with any kind of "meritocracy" principles you seem to be alluding to.
Yes... maybe my viewpoint of directed evolution makes me more attuned to certain aspects of such a statement.
I certainly agree that evolutionary processes are generally speaking most directly responsible for biological differentiation, but I'm unwilling to make the inference from that of "often, therefore always" and statements like the one quoted seem to border on pseudoscience in how broad, unspecific, and untestable they are. I personally think that science is best served by making scientific statements, rather than an overstatement based on presuppositions, even if the person doing so is a scientist.
But yes, fully agreed that humans and chimps are very different. And I'm happy to have a metaphysical differentiator to be able say that, where science alone has no differentiator at all. Not having one takes us to a rather... interesting... ethical space.
So, you seem to be agreeing with me more than disagreeing. The categories are not clear and distinctive, which I went ahead and called "arbitrary", because that's what they are.
So back to the quoted sentence...
"...mice and rats diverged somewhere between 12 and 24 million years ago."
I still have no idea what actual information this is supposed to convey. Or is it more of a "rah rah, evolution!" reaction thing?
Pavlovian conditioning hasn't worked on me for a long time. Maybe that's my problem.
...mice and rats diverged somewhere between 12 and 24 million years ago.
It'd be nice if my field's conclusions could be this broad...
Between this range and the fact that every reproduction is a "divergence", and so the baseline here seems to be divergence from one arbitrary cluster of characteristics given a latin name, and another arbitrary cluster of characteristics given a different latin name...
What does this even mean?
Yes, I know. I'll be shortly told I'm too dumb to understand, instead of an explanation. Fair enough, stipulated. Now go ahead and inform me of stuff.
Inequality isn't a problem because rich people MAKE more than poor people. We should
encourage people to create as much wealth as possible.
This is a semantic misdirection I can't help commenting on when I hear it.
Rich people don't "make" more money than poor people. Rich people "get their hands on" more money than poor people.
Getting money and creating value correlate very weakly.
How would you rank these in terms of a) actual creation of value, and b) income?
1. A CEO
2. A lawyer
3. An engineer
4. A scientist
Now rank them in terms of income.
However one falls on the question of what is most appropriate to tax, and to what level, clarity on the factors of production, consumption, and taxation is critical. "Making money" being used synonymously with "receiving income" is one of the more intractable social barriers to this, IMHO.
Incidentally, this seems to be one of the main problems with recent STEM and "learn to code" efforts. Corporations aren't doing as well with obscuring the basic premise they want more productive work done (and admitting where it comes from is unavoidable in this case), while receiving the majority of the income from that value produced, by the STEM students they wish to "encourage". People aren't, in the main, buying it.
And we're quite okay on the AI claim until they teach it to critique in detail the respective statements "l think therefore l am" versus "I think therefore I am"...
So, it's now scientifically directly false to claim that all observable biological features can be explained without reference to design.
Looking for a proposed date at which we know design did not happen before then, to be able to make a -qualified- statement of explanation via evolutionary processes, that is, knowing the mainstream causal factors given, e.g. in classrooms, is simply, provably, scientifically false.
What date do you like, before which we have evidence to assert biological design did not happen?
Are you done trolling me? There was nothing of substance you have to respond to, claiming I'm "burying myself" is nonsensical, and your perceptions of "random" are really poor.
Seems like a non-optimal use of your limited time, really.
Interesting. How many other questions of scientific fact are there for which you feel having an incorrect opinion, or no opinion at all, is worthy of personal attack?
Don't special-plead "creationism" here, tell me what's special about this, among all questions of science of which the general public is commonly incorrect about, -drawing only from science and the priorities of it-. Maybe you could mention some other scientific topics you commonly apply this necessity of derision toward when you encounter them.
We have enough theologians of anti-theology already, I think.
They are useful for a great many purposes, yes. For the actual purpose of the actual question asked in particular, this particular naming convention isn't useful at all.
But, some are under the misunderstanding that this naming convention represents "the way things really are" (apparently, such as the person asking) rather than "a grouping of names of categories formed based on largely-arbitrary criteria".
You seem inordinately upset by this. Sorry if I disturbed your unthinking acceptance of your preferred convention. We'll have to discuss this at length someday.
Slashdot Mirror
Neat Bare Assertion fallacy.
I trust your evidence for this will be forthcoming. Bonus points for other possible design influences, such as extraterrestrial life, and by what criteria you are dismissing one with a certainty you can't apply to the other.
Oh, who am I kidding. You're devoid of honest thought. Evolution can go ahead and eliminate you.
Uh, yeah, not really. More precisely, they're selective interpretation.
"I exist, so I must exist for a reason!"
"If you didn't exist, didn't have the brain power to think, etc, you wouldn't be in a position to ask the question. Ergo, all you're proving is you're conscious."
"Ah, but consciousness is proof!"
"Proof that you have consciousness. Just like any other being that had or will have consciousness."
Not sure if you are unaware, equivocating, or simply intellectually dishonest, but none of this speaks to what "plausible" simply means. For one, "plausible" definitely does not mean "proof". Fix that, and we can proceed.
Really, the absurdity of any notion of directed evolution or ID comes down to, you know, the fact that there's all manner of life on Earth that has nothing to do with humanity. Why mice AND rats? Because they fit an ecological niche? Sounds to me more like begging the question. And as much as it can go both ways, evolution is a testable theory that doesn't try to stuff in an overreaching "why" that presupposes an external entity that rigged the game JUST for humans. Beyond the sheer arrogance of it, the fact that humans will eventually be evolved away means the only that perhaps can be gained from that arrogance is a written legacy so the next species will see how stupid it was.
The ecosystem has nothing to do with humanity's needs? Really? This is your argument? Perhaps you'd like to propose another construct that would be more "logical" to what you presuppose the objectives are. As for the blank assertion that humans will eventually be evolved away, that is evidence-free on a level that IC isn't close to approaching. But, let's just summarily deal with the fact that you cannot live a single day without implicitly presupposing humans have a privileged metaphysical status (and please, don't fail to understand what the 2500-year-old branch of philosophy called "metaphysics" is, and think it's basically an episode of Ghost Hunters), starting with the legal system within which you exist. Your daily life refutes you for me.
Well, death actually. Evolution occurs at, you know, millions of years time scales (well, it's more fixed to generations, but for humans that's the scope of millions of years). And like I said, the only reason to have these discussions is really to hopefully have enough copies of something written so the future species will not rest so heavily on their own hubris. Because it's clear humans don't really comprehend their limited existence as a whole and don't really want to have a real impact in the universe. If we did, we wouldn't so proudly stand on our molehill and act like king of Mount Everest (and that, to scale, is such a gross mischaracterization of the size of the galaxy let alone the universe, but then humans don't do well with really big things (or large time scales)).
Evolution acts at large time scales, and short ones. The core mechanism happens with particular cases of natural selection of a particular organism. Or perhaps more specifically, natural deselection. More specifically, of you. Where are you deriving this strange bifurcation of evolution that long-term things are evolution, and the short-term events by which it occurs, are not? It might feel more comfortable to you personally, but it's scientifically erroneous. And science (specifically, philosophical naturalism) is all you get to reference, by choice.
But, then, I guess we should all be thankful that so many humans are so self-centered. Otherwise, you'd likely be one that'd support Von Neumann probes and then the only thing Earth would be known for billions of years from now is being the king of spacecraft SPAM.
At least we ended on a truly bizarre and funny note. Let's do that next time, too.
You might say that, and the only thing remaining would be to back it.
Let's start with me simply noting that I comprehend the natural quite well, eh, I'll go ahead and say better than you, and leaving you to show otherwise. That will require some actual content or an actual argument.
You see, I'm not one of those pushing the "religion versus science" false dichotomy who hope to damage religion and only end up damaging science. A frequent occurrence of people overextending their arguments with bias-driven pseudoscience being presented in the name of science.
No, it's simply false to say that the market is a determinant of value, or that the 5 dollars is value you have "created".
Simple math, helpful to encouraging deriving totally erroneous conclusions.
In reality, the creator of the bike, created the value. That is spread out over a great number of historical engineers and scientists, credited and uncredited. You've simply profited by moving the value around.
If you want a more formal statement of this, in fact the middleman's profit is not derived from "the market", but rather a differential in knowledge of the perfect market. If in fact, another person would sell an equivalent bike at a $1 profit, the "value" could equally be said to be $1, rather than $5. That's because your notion of anecdotal market exchanges determining the value is entirely wrong--those values are in fact determined largely by taking advantage of people's ignorance of the market.
If someone takes a job at $10000/year for which the actual perfect market value would be $50000/year, doing identical work, it does not mean that the former person's work is in fact only worth $10000/year, it means he is being taken advantage of by someone with a broader knowledge of the market. And that knowledge does not create value. The guy doing the work is creating it. And executives know this clearly, and it is their primary source of income. As it is for the entirety of the financial sector. Income, not value creation, which is absent from their involvement in the situation.
So, you agree in principle with directed evolution, in that you directly say man is one cause of it?
I imagine there's one, and only one, source of design you categorically reject. I wonder what that would be...
I don't understand. Both directed evolution and ID are plausible positions. After you claim they are not, even when you invoke the conclusions of lawyers whose scientific credentials are assured by wearing a black robe and sitting on an impressive raised platform, it will remain exactly as plausible as it in fact is.
Complexity is evidence. You'll claim it is not, that will be your interpretation of the evidence and not in any way affect the reality it is evidence. That such complexity could -also- be explained in another way, again, in no way alters it from being evidence of my stance. It merely becomes evidence for more than one stance.
Anyway, I've posted peer-reviewed evidence for a "director" before, but that isn't really necessary as you have no compelling basis, nor even any reasonable basis to conclude, that no biological design has happened over those billions of non-observable years.
I am not trolling. If I stopped, you just get eliminated by evolution and you become completely and permanently irrelevant. According to you yourself. Hopefully that will make you feel less tired.
Don't blame me that your position has no possible derivable benefit, and mine does, and that according to you yourself, what your opinion may be could not possibly be of any even theoretical value. Kudos on "STFU" as an airtight scientific and philosphical argument, though.
In response to your other comments on divergence and speciation, you should know that diverged groups can be the same species. When populations separate they then adapt to their environment as well as drifting genetically. It is this difference, the distance between the groups in terms of DNA, that is the divergence. In general we consider something a different species if it is mostly unwilling to interbreed or sufficiently inefficient at producing fertile offspring that gene transfer is suppressed (both is unnecessary) but it takes a fair amount of genetic distance for this to happen, so the point of divergence is before the point of separation into separate species. Because this change happens at a roughly constant rate we can with care estimate the time in the past when two groups separated by calculating from the divergence (but this is not the speciation point which is why they specifically use "diverged" as a word).All of these are much more messy in reality than we might like, for example even as groups become more genetically distinct there can still be occasional genetic exchange due to interbreeding, and the species/sub-species line is blurred but despite the noise the data is still good for an approximate answer.
I do think I should say to this as well, that it seems you are correcting my notion that the criteria is rather vague with "You idiot! It's way vaguer even than that!"
I stand corrected... I think.
The same is true of felines and then again for domestic cats. We label according to a process which over time broadens what a category means but can never fully rewrite its origin or skip across groups. Thus the features that can be in these groups and subgroups are fixed for us to discover, not just pulled out of a hat.
Okay, but the category you cannot rewrite is also just as arbitrary, and pulled out of a hat.
You complying with them is, to all appearances, simply dogma and a mandate never to correct yourself, even if scientifically required, lest you "rock the boat" of your predecessor's arbitrary names and categories.
Of course no animals break this pattern. You've made it so by fiat, such that anything you add unfalsifiably fits the categorization system that was, to be frank, made up. Because your methodology is constructed to ensure that.
I am hopeful that cladistics will provide an objective methodology here that is sorely needed, but outside of that, what are you saying that contradicts my notion that this is all an arbitrary construct of your own (well, rather, "biology scientist clubhouse") creation?
So... you've got nothing. Got it.
The person making the original statement as a statement of science, exactly as I've said. My statements as to what I am "happy" about, like my preferences in music, are neither offered as scientific claims nor need be addressed within that domain.
If you're using "make" as a term for earning money through wages, then most rich people "make" money. They may also make more money by investing money wisely, whether it be stocks, starting businesses, etc... If you think that rich people "get their hands on" money by just stealing it from the poor, you're delusional.
As delusional as imagining I said something I didn't, as you just did? But no, gaining from the creation of value, such as the financial sector does, is not creation of value. If you want to make an argument that it facilitates it, fine, and appropriate relevance (and compensation) for this could be discussed.
Can a scientist/engineer/lawyer organize and run a huge company composed of lawyers, engineers, and scientists?
Yes. One requires extensive knowledge and by definition the ability to manifest value-add directly by that knowledge, that knowledge being the core relevant thing to a company doing it. The part distinctive to the executive role requires a $50 filing of Articles of Incorporation and pre-existing access to wealth or "contacts" for it. There's no question here that in terms of -ability-, the people with the skills can do that, the reverse is definitely not necessarily true. If we are discussion CEO's whose income is validated -insofar as- they are acting as one of the other categories, that is not contrary to my premise. Mostly, however, the market is determined simply by inequality of opportunity, and the business structures derived directly from that--having little to do with any kind of "meritocracy" principles you seem to be alluding to.
Yes, saying a CEO's income is validly creation of value -insofar as- their work is as one of these, is not something I'm arguing against.
Yes... maybe my viewpoint of directed evolution makes me more attuned to certain aspects of such a statement.
I certainly agree that evolutionary processes are generally speaking most directly responsible for biological differentiation, but I'm unwilling to make the inference from that of "often, therefore always" and statements like the one quoted seem to border on pseudoscience in how broad, unspecific, and untestable they are. I personally think that science is best served by making scientific statements, rather than an overstatement based on presuppositions, even if the person doing so is a scientist.
But yes, fully agreed that humans and chimps are very different. And I'm happy to have a metaphysical differentiator to be able say that, where science alone has no differentiator at all. Not having one takes us to a rather... interesting... ethical space.
Fair enough, but as was already noted, speciation is not definitively determinable by ability to reproduce.
It's a pretty core problem with the term, scientifically, actually.
So, I was taking "divergence" in a broader sense, which also doesn't seem to work for the statement.
Still, I see nowhere that I insulted anyone. I addressed a particular sentence, which has multiple levels of lack of clarity. That's all.
So, you seem to be agreeing with me more than disagreeing. The categories are not clear and distinctive, which I went ahead and called "arbitrary", because that's what they are.
So back to the quoted sentence...
"...mice and rats diverged somewhere between 12 and 24 million years ago."
I still have no idea what actual information this is supposed to convey. Or is it more of a "rah rah, evolution!" reaction thing?
Pavlovian conditioning hasn't worked on me for a long time. Maybe that's my problem.
Oh, yes, forgot the other likely result. Summary downmodding. Thanks for the reminder of Slashdot tradition.
...mice and rats diverged somewhere between 12 and 24 million years ago.
It'd be nice if my field's conclusions could be this broad...
Between this range and the fact that every reproduction is a "divergence", and so the baseline here seems to be divergence from one arbitrary cluster of characteristics given a latin name, and another arbitrary cluster of characteristics given a different latin name...
What does this even mean?
Yes, I know. I'll be shortly told I'm too dumb to understand, instead of an explanation. Fair enough, stipulated. Now go ahead and inform me of stuff.
Inequality isn't a problem because rich people MAKE more than poor people. We should encourage people to create as much wealth as possible.
This is a semantic misdirection I can't help commenting on when I hear it.
Rich people don't "make" more money than poor people. Rich people "get their hands on" more money than poor people.
Getting money and creating value correlate very weakly.
How would you rank these in terms of a) actual creation of value, and b) income?
1. A CEO
2. A lawyer
3. An engineer
4. A scientist
Now rank them in terms of income.
However one falls on the question of what is most appropriate to tax, and to what level, clarity on the factors of production, consumption, and taxation is critical. "Making money" being used synonymously with "receiving income" is one of the more intractable social barriers to this, IMHO.
Incidentally, this seems to be one of the main problems with recent STEM and "learn to code" efforts. Corporations aren't doing as well with obscuring the basic premise they want more productive work done (and admitting where it comes from is unavoidable in this case), while receiving the majority of the income from that value produced, by the STEM students they wish to "encourage". People aren't, in the main, buying it.
And we're quite okay on the AI claim until they teach it to critique in detail the respective statements "l think therefore l am" versus "I think therefore I am"...
So, it's now scientifically directly false to claim that all observable biological features can be explained without reference to design.
Looking for a proposed date at which we know design did not happen before then, to be able to make a -qualified- statement of explanation via evolutionary processes, that is, knowing the mainstream causal factors given, e.g. in classrooms, is simply, provably, scientifically false.
What date do you like, before which we have evidence to assert biological design did not happen?
Pfft.
Are you done trolling me? There was nothing of substance you have to respond to, claiming I'm "burying myself" is nonsensical, and your perceptions of "random" are really poor.
Seems like a non-optimal use of your limited time, really.
Noted. For the record.
No, not that one.
As for your objectives, given all I need to do is wait, and I win, even according to -you-, you might want to reconsider your strategic plan here.
Clearly, you need a time out.
Interesting. How many other questions of scientific fact are there for which you feel having an incorrect opinion, or no opinion at all, is worthy of personal attack?
Don't special-plead "creationism" here, tell me what's special about this, among all questions of science of which the general public is commonly incorrect about, -drawing only from science and the priorities of it-. Maybe you could mention some other scientific topics you commonly apply this necessity of derision toward when you encounter them.
We have enough theologians of anti-theology already, I think.
They are useful for a great many purposes, yes. For the actual purpose of the actual question asked in particular, this particular naming convention isn't useful at all.
But, some are under the misunderstanding that this naming convention represents "the way things really are" (apparently, such as the person asking) rather than "a grouping of names of categories formed based on largely-arbitrary criteria".
You seem inordinately upset by this. Sorry if I disturbed your unthinking acceptance of your preferred convention. We'll have to discuss this at length someday.