Occam's Razor says what I concluded would be the simplest explanation. "God did it" is remarkably simple in terms of a hypothesis. Of course, unlike you, I both understand, and avoid misrepresenting what Occam's Razor says, and it says nothing about truth-status, ever. Only conceptual economy of description, when all else is equal.
My experiences mostly took the form of "coincidences" piled so improbably and close together that concluding they were by chance took on the characteristic of being absurd.
Beyond that, I'll discuss it in an appropriate venue with someone who isn't just an Anonymous Coward. My arguments stand alone, and need no backing to them of the nature of elaborating on personal experiences.
No, actually not what I'm saying, which you would know by reference to the fact I said it nowhere, and said instead examples making directly clear this is not my view.
Not sure what you feel you gain by arguing with yourself on what you make up that I said, but I don't consider this to only apply to experimentation.
I say this, because that's what math says.
The notion of significant digits is not limited to that context in any way. That you may have personally encountered it in this context doesn't really matter.
From Wikipedia:
"For example, the population of a city might only be known to the nearest thousand and be stated as 52,000, while the population of a country might only be known to the nearest million and be stated as 52,000,000. The former might be in error by hundreds, and the latter might be in error by hundreds of thousands, but both have two significant digits (5 and 2). This reflects the fact that the significance of the error (its likely size relative to the size of the quantity being measured) is the same in both cases."
Whether one was -able- to provide more precision isn't relevant either. I am not stating by "52,000" that I have no means of specifying it more precisely, rather, that I'm not presently doing so. This may be due to actually not being able to, or simply not having chosen to do so. In either case, what precision is stipulated to be provided, is determined by the significant digits of the value given. This would apply to any context in which such a value is given.
Ah, the vast majority of taxes are paid by theists, as simple demographic fact.
They do in fact have the "proper" jobs you say they don't, which is what is paying those taxes. They've learned enough to have those jobs, as a matter of the simple fact they have them.
I really think you need to align your notion of one-sided victimhood with a perspective at least vaguely corresponding to directly-verifiable reality.
Not really. I'm saying you don't have any valid objection, which you don't.
Instincts are not morality, drives are not ethics. What is bred into us instinctively has nothing to do with actual morality on any level.
But, that aside. That you think you have "morals" by this means is irrelevant. Reasonable morality would say that rights exist in such entities that would have a basis to claim them, and you, ostensibly, have no such basis.
If you do, please provide it. Because even if you claim a vague existence of some kind of morals as a consequence of evolution--it's really a meaningless and ineffectual answer to address someone who simply asserts his biology says his morals are otherwise. And since you have no possible basis to contradict this claim, you have no possibility of generating a systematic, functional ethics (your goal all along, I'd personally assert, but that isn't of central importance here).
When we get out of that subjective morass of "my evolved morals say" versus "your evolved morals say", and move onto something proposes as having any real force, that is, something -objective-, you immediately lose because you disclaim any reason others should think you have any objective rights.
Or, maybe you don't. For me, my basis for the notion of "rights" would be the existence of something that differentiates me clearly from animals--that is, a "soul". Do you propose some differentiator for yourself, as a reason to grant you any more special consideration than any other given DNA, and allow you to avoid overwhelming moral hypocrisy by reference to your own daily actions?
I'm curious. How are you special DNA? Can you point at the naturalist justification for this as a unique attribute I can materially verify?
"Rights don't -actually- exist, but you have instincts that say they do, so you should as if they do, unless your biology tells you otherwise" just isn't an argument with any moral force or scientific coherence at all.
Seriously, how do you personally conclude you have rights, and your lunch doesn't? Your instincts feel it? What's the thought, or feeling, process here that gets you to that conclusion?
Don't know, nutjob idiot of a poster (see how it's true because I put the words there?), but I'm glad you love psychopaths. May you find one to be your lifelong partner.
No. In case you -actually- didn't read what I was responding to and my response, rather than just pretending your restatement is accurate, it the False Dichotomy Fallacy of -only- science being a valid epistemological means of acquiring knowledge.
Don't repeat the fallacy, don't confuse yourself with it.
Science is valid. Other methods are valid, too. Your immediate sense data without any scientific method applied, informing you that what's self-evidently there in front of you is indeed there in front of you, is another example, if you don't like religion as the alternative breaking the original fallacious argument. That argument, note, being the basis of my response.
The zero is not a significant digit, as a trailing zero with no subsequent non-zero values, and no decimal point after it.
In any case, we have translation considerations that make this issue not map precisely. However, in any other context, if someone wrote expenditures were "$5000000", you consider a final tally of $5148232.87 to contradict this? Most don't. If you do, move on to the next point you need to also address, that the only exception is female, and the verse only specifies males. Then we can move onto proving she actually lived that long, and there isn't a case of documentation error or a false claim happening in one out of billions of cases.
These are -ands- you need to show, not -ors-, to get to your hoped-for demonstrable contradiction, to assert your hoped-for inevitable Natural Deselection elimination of yourself. Keep going.
Still, no reason to argue this. I don't argue inter-theist positions here at Slashdot, as I'm not unclear who the actual opposition is, or feel a need to boost my own ego by leveraging whatever I happen to know to attack my own team.
Not exactly "devoting my life", in a literal sense. Most of my time goes into my career as a software developer.
Nonetheless, if you feel "called" to do something, by a compelling demonstration by what you can only conclude is a supernatural entity, you tend to do it.
As for "progress", well, apart from religion there can be no permanent "progress" whatsoever. Every single atheist, and all of their views, will be dead and gone in 150 years. Same for any more of them after that. And even should one get past that lifespan, entropy will be along to eliminate everything and everyone, inescapably, if we limit ourselves to a naturalist metaphysics.
Still, interesting perspective framing things in terms of "progress". I rarely encounter any opposition that doesn't just obviously think in terms of "I'll say or do or think whatever I have to, to try to feel unconflicted about getting away with whatever I want to get away with right now". They don't say it, of course--but that doesn't mean it isn't just as directly obvious anyway. What's the evidence? Pick any two and see if they even have the mere beginnings of any common ethics--that is, any functional ethics, for which commonality of agreement is an absolute prerequisite. Seriously, pick two, and have them write down, separately, their Top 5 ethical axioms--when there's no correlation, realize there isn't specifically because they never wanted to pursue any correlation, because regardless of how many times they might use the word "ethics", they absolutely never wanted anything resembling a functional ethics to be put into practice, that could apply to themselves. That's why it was never pursued, that's why there's no similarity on their respective lists. They want the antithesis of ethics, and that's what they have, as verifiable at any time. Trying to bluff what their real objectives are with empty claims, well, just doesn't really work in the long run.
But, yeah, thanks for the reminder at least someone is framing this in the context of a goal "progress". It's important.
Again, everything I said, precisely accurate, precisely correct according to theism, precisely correct according to basic mathematics.
When you have those 64 examples, let me know. Until then, you have billions against you. And, of course, as you know, I never claimed I would "abandon" it, only that it would require me to reevaluate some core assumptions.
Don't even try to convince me of of "defying God". What I -know- by direct experience of such isn't going to be ludicrously dissuaded by the tortured equivocations of a random Anonymous Coward.
What? Your second two "examples" aren't even vaguely similar to the question posted.
I'll stop making the argument as soon as it's refuted. It hasn't been, and claiming it has when it hasn't, isn't the same. Including in this case.
If you are modifying DNA, you are doing design, and the resulting organisms are designed. This process is distinct from "descent", as "descent" specifies a nature fully captured by standard reproductive descent. It's that simple.
And, I disagree with Young Earth Creationism as well. I'm definitely OEC.
My response had a specific context, regardless of what you might make up that the context was. The clear notion was the construction of a False Dichotomy Fallacy presenting science as the exclusive valid means of acquiring knowledge. I presented a challenge to the application of scientific methods in response. No, in no way am I suggesting religion is the only approach, and thereby falling for the False Dichotomy I was arguing against.
It is a remarkable prediction. Theists have the flexibility of allegorical interpretation, naturalists do not. The figure was given, thousands of years in advance, and has held correct with specifically the digits of accuracy offered. With only one possible try. This is a major difficulty to explain, it is not a case of random guesses being provided and one happening to hit. It is, quite simply, very significant evidence.
You're just dancing around two positions, neither of which you will take, to semi-address issues you alone know in the face of compelling evidence you have directly at hand. You seem to want to semi-accept theism, or something... fine. The remarkable nature of the prediction remains just as remarkable as it is.
Understood, and in this case the population size existing at the time represents the "number of entries". This still resolves to a specific probability, given that.
That is, ultimately, probably, quantifiable. When we get to the point of quantifying all the factors, we'll plug it into an equation, and see what the numbers are.
Until then, my position remains the same. "Evolution occurs" as a general statement, is absolutely true, while "-only- evolution occurs" (that is, we need refer only to naturalism mechanisms to account for all cases of biological structures) remains unverified and untested, and as such should not be accepted as demonstrated, as a question of fundamental correct application of the criteria of science.
"If the numbers can change"... maybe you can elaborate on this, because it sounds to me like you are stretching an analogy to a point that simply doesn't apply to the constraints at hand. Each mutation has a finite probability, a combination of such mutations has a probability of the product of each individually. So far, simple math. Survivability at each generation, if proposed occurring individually, or the above probability as represented as a product if proposes as occurring in a single organism.
The probabilities are exactly what they are, mathematically, regardless of inapplicable analogies. Fortunately, once our modeling of the chemistry, mutations required, and the relevant population size becomes precise enough, we'll just hard-calculate what the specific probability numbers are. Then everyone can make their own appraisals of credulity.
As for being "lied to", well, of course you have no possible way of knowing my history, so your supernatural claims to psychic knowledge might be something for you to look at, but... indeed, I have asked for proof from the relevant entity able to provide it, and duly received it. That you haven't, and do not know, is not even -possibly- relevant to the fact I have. What you can validly claim, and cannot, your psychic powers notwithstanding, have been well-defined by the subject of epistemology. I'd suggest a refresher.
I've addressed this in other comments, but in brief, if "common descent" means "anything derived by any means from DNA", common descent becomes unfalsifiable.
To me, "descent" means, unmodified reproductive descent. If you want to expand that into the unfalsifiable and scientifically useless, feel free. But it hardly benefits science.
As for there being no evidence, well, there simply is. The Cambrian Explosion and the rate of evolution simply is evidence. Note I said "evidence", not "proof", so don't do that standard redirect. Please also note that something being "evidence" does not depend on the ultimate factual disposition of the matter, in this case or any other, including those 99% of directly-parallel circumstances, every single day, you'd immediately call the equivalent of "evidence", just as long as it didn't have any possible association for you with "religion". Proper use of words, proper use of logic, a tiny bit of objectivity. All I'm looking for here.
Okay, let's propose that this trend is valid as expressed, and taken to the endpoint extreme, and this cultural subset simply kills you all en masse.
From a Darwinian perspective, they've simply increased the propagation rate of their DNA. What I'm curious about is what -your- stance has as any form of objection to this outcome at all, let alone that probably, from a Natural Selection perspective, them doing this to you would be genetically recommended.
Sure, horrible for you personally, but good in the only objective sense you have to refer to, Darwinian outcomes. And, of course, that good that would be objective would be the only thing that objectively matters in any way.
How do you resolve this for yourself, personally, without resorting to vague subjective principles without any basis or justification within your naturalist metaphysics?
If your "rights" aren't grounded in a metaphysical basis, as they are explicitly justified by historically in, at least, American society, what basis do you have to demonstrate they exist at all? I submit you have "rights" solely to the degree that nobody notices you aren't actively disclaiming you have them--and you have de facto respect for them specifically -to the degree- people -refuse to accept what you insist on for yourself-. You accept them by indirect assimilation, then reject the underlying justification, and... what? Hope nobody notices you are disclaiming any basis for them for yourself?
I know a couple-dozen immediately-refutable propositions on how one can claim individual rights, without the underpinning of a metaphysics including a transcendentally powerful entity providing them by fiat. What I don't know is the breakdown of personal views among these untenable arguments. What is yours?
Do you have "rights"? Why would I think such a thing actually exists? Can you point to it, let me scientifically measure it, so I can verify that?
Sure, this could be seen as an "extremist" view, which, of course, hardly matters if it's just actually extremely accurate.
So, what say you? What attribute can you specify that justifies you being treated ethically differently from the rest of the DNA permutations on the Linnaean Taxonomy? Provided you don't have such a differentiator, and therefore none should be rationally applied to you in your case, I'm certainly still willing to promise you respect for your rights equivalent to what you gave to the morally-equivalent-according-to-you cow you ate for lunch.
Okay, now moving past the irrelevant personal critique spice up with and Appeal to Authority and Ad Hominem fallacies...
Exact same question--is it your position that the probability of 100 mutations occurring in a single organism, as opposed to these 100 occurring over 200 generations, are equivalent? If so, are you thereby opposed to the position of mainstream evolutionary biology?
Don't care in the least about your parading your supposed qualifications that exempt you from even deigning to answer a troublesome question. Just answer the question.
The room gets positively chilly the moment the words "macro" or "micro" are brought up. Because guess what? Even if those terms were appropriated from actual biology, they have long since fallen out of use precisely because they have been appropriated.
I'm curious--how would you propose I differentiate this "chilliness" from abject awareness in the "other side" that their argument is erroneous, and psychologically preparing to equivocate and dissemble and misrepresent the (perhaps more reasonable) positions of -their own field-?
Apart from the wider discussion, I find this fascinating. You precisely describe -the very definition- of symptoms of evasion, and present that as your evidence they are comfortably correct.
I conclude "the way they act is obvious evidence of misrepresentation", you conclude "the way they act is obvious evidence of their truthfulness", with -the exact same- input. Is it possible we both can actually honestly believe these diametrically-opposed positions? An interesting sideline discussion, someday...
But anyway...
As for what I believe, though of course irrelevant to a -scientific- discussion of the questions at hand, it wouldn't matter at all to the viability of my overall worldview. To me, like a car factory, designing a system that produces an entity is equivalent to designing the particular end result. There's little conceptual difference between me saying "individual biological forms were designed" and saying "the process that produced individual biological forms, evolution, was designed". The questions of particular acts of design applying to particular biology would be fascinating from a -scientific- perspective, however--precisely as we see people trying to ensure we never investigate this, and thereby damage science, on the supposed behalf of science.
I have no need to find "gaps", because my worldview works equally well with or without "gaps". This was just something that Dawkins wanted to make up about theism to fit an argument he was prepared to type something about for some book-cash. Not actually true at all.
Well, interesting, but it seems if this is your stance, it is false right at the root.
You are saying that 100 mutations occurring in a single organism, is of equivalent probability to 100 mutations occurring in 200 generations? Well, no, simply false as a matter of chemistry, and additionally contradicting the core proposed mechanism of mainstream evolutionary thought.
I'd like the link to Dawkins--he's often wrong, but this is an unexpected level of -astonishingly- wrong to me.
I've never seen an argument that is basically exactly the same as saying "There's no difference between you winning a coin toss and winning the lottery, they're both probability, idiot" sustained with such conviction.
No, macro- and micro- evolution are absolutely quantitatively distinct due to the probabilities involved regarding the number of mutually-reinforcing mutations that must occur for the necessary outcome, while maintaining survivability.
To do a definitional two-step and claim that "macro-evolution" can be equivalently called "speciation" (well, no, but let's leave that aside--I don't want to interfere with the acceptability of a word now that you personally used it rather than another term from someone else you say says the same thing), and then stating we've seen speciation -of bacteria-, and then inferring that addresses the probability issue of "macro-evolution" is just astonishing in it's sheer evasive bluster.
Follow the probabilities of the necessary mutations. That's all anyone on either side is contending, redefine, reject terms, propose other terms, whatever. It's all evasion outside of this.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I fully accept "evolution occurs" (testable, scientific), and do not accept "only evolution occurs" (untestable, unscientific, and unfortunately for some absolutely required for their worldview's viability), so I am not contending with evolution per se, just your desperate overreach into the untestable and unscientific.
Slashdot Mirror
Occam's Razor says what I concluded would be the simplest explanation. "God did it" is remarkably simple in terms of a hypothesis. Of course, unlike you, I both understand, and avoid misrepresenting what Occam's Razor says, and it says nothing about truth-status, ever. Only conceptual economy of description, when all else is equal.
My experiences mostly took the form of "coincidences" piled so improbably and close together that concluding they were by chance took on the characteristic of being absurd.
Beyond that, I'll discuss it in an appropriate venue with someone who isn't just an Anonymous Coward. My arguments stand alone, and need no backing to them of the nature of elaborating on personal experiences.
No, actually not what I'm saying, which you would know by reference to the fact I said it nowhere, and said instead examples making directly clear this is not my view.
Not sure what you feel you gain by arguing with yourself on what you make up that I said, but I don't consider this to only apply to experimentation.
I say this, because that's what math says.
The notion of significant digits is not limited to that context in any way. That you may have personally encountered it in this context doesn't really matter.
From Wikipedia:
"For example, the population of a city might only be known to the nearest thousand and be stated as 52,000, while the population of a country might only be known to the nearest million and be stated as 52,000,000. The former might be in error by hundreds, and the latter might be in error by hundreds of thousands, but both have two significant digits (5 and 2). This reflects the fact that the significance of the error (its likely size relative to the size of the quantity being measured) is the same in both cases."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures)
Whether one was -able- to provide more precision isn't relevant either. I am not stating by "52,000" that I have no means of specifying it more precisely, rather, that I'm not presently doing so. This may be due to actually not being able to, or simply not having chosen to do so. In either case, what precision is stipulated to be provided, is determined by the significant digits of the value given. This would apply to any context in which such a value is given.
Ah, the vast majority of taxes are paid by theists, as simple demographic fact.
They do in fact have the "proper" jobs you say they don't, which is what is paying those taxes. They've learned enough to have those jobs, as a matter of the simple fact they have them.
I really think you need to align your notion of one-sided victimhood with a perspective at least vaguely corresponding to directly-verifiable reality.
Not really. I'm saying you don't have any valid objection, which you don't.
Instincts are not morality, drives are not ethics. What is bred into us instinctively has nothing to do with actual morality on any level.
But, that aside. That you think you have "morals" by this means is irrelevant. Reasonable morality would say that rights exist in such entities that would have a basis to claim them, and you, ostensibly, have no such basis.
If you do, please provide it. Because even if you claim a vague existence of some kind of morals as a consequence of evolution--it's really a meaningless and ineffectual answer to address someone who simply asserts his biology says his morals are otherwise. And since you have no possible basis to contradict this claim, you have no possibility of generating a systematic, functional ethics (your goal all along, I'd personally assert, but that isn't of central importance here).
When we get out of that subjective morass of "my evolved morals say" versus "your evolved morals say", and move onto something proposes as having any real force, that is, something -objective-, you immediately lose because you disclaim any reason others should think you have any objective rights.
Or, maybe you don't. For me, my basis for the notion of "rights" would be the existence of something that differentiates me clearly from animals--that is, a "soul". Do you propose some differentiator for yourself, as a reason to grant you any more special consideration than any other given DNA, and allow you to avoid overwhelming moral hypocrisy by reference to your own daily actions?
I'm curious. How are you special DNA? Can you point at the naturalist justification for this as a unique attribute I can materially verify?
"Rights don't -actually- exist, but you have instincts that say they do, so you should as if they do, unless your biology tells you otherwise" just isn't an argument with any moral force or scientific coherence at all.
Seriously, how do you personally conclude you have rights, and your lunch doesn't? Your instincts feel it? What's the thought, or feeling, process here that gets you to that conclusion?
Don't know, nutjob idiot of a poster (see how it's true because I put the words there?), but I'm glad you love psychopaths. May you find one to be your lifelong partner.
No. In case you -actually- didn't read what I was responding to and my response, rather than just pretending your restatement is accurate, it the False Dichotomy Fallacy of -only- science being a valid epistemological means of acquiring knowledge.
Don't repeat the fallacy, don't confuse yourself with it.
Science is valid. Other methods are valid, too. Your immediate sense data without any scientific method applied, informing you that what's self-evidently there in front of you is indeed there in front of you, is another example, if you don't like religion as the alternative breaking the original fallacious argument. That argument, note, being the basis of my response.
No.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
The zero is not a significant digit, as a trailing zero with no subsequent non-zero values, and no decimal point after it.
In any case, we have translation considerations that make this issue not map precisely. However, in any other context, if someone wrote expenditures were "$5000000", you consider a final tally of $5148232.87 to contradict this? Most don't. If you do, move on to the next point you need to also address, that the only exception is female, and the verse only specifies males. Then we can move onto proving she actually lived that long, and there isn't a case of documentation error or a false claim happening in one out of billions of cases.
These are -ands- you need to show, not -ors-, to get to your hoped-for demonstrable contradiction, to assert your hoped-for inevitable Natural Deselection elimination of yourself. Keep going.
No, sorry, a lunar year would be 354.5 days.
Still, no reason to argue this. I don't argue inter-theist positions here at Slashdot, as I'm not unclear who the actual opposition is, or feel a need to boost my own ego by leveraging whatever I happen to know to attack my own team.
Another couple:
"Get to the point."
"Put up or shut up."
Not exactly "devoting my life", in a literal sense. Most of my time goes into my career as a software developer.
Nonetheless, if you feel "called" to do something, by a compelling demonstration by what you can only conclude is a supernatural entity, you tend to do it.
As for "progress", well, apart from religion there can be no permanent "progress" whatsoever. Every single atheist, and all of their views, will be dead and gone in 150 years. Same for any more of them after that. And even should one get past that lifespan, entropy will be along to eliminate everything and everyone, inescapably, if we limit ourselves to a naturalist metaphysics.
Still, interesting perspective framing things in terms of "progress". I rarely encounter any opposition that doesn't just obviously think in terms of "I'll say or do or think whatever I have to, to try to feel unconflicted about getting away with whatever I want to get away with right now". They don't say it, of course--but that doesn't mean it isn't just as directly obvious anyway. What's the evidence? Pick any two and see if they even have the mere beginnings of any common ethics--that is, any functional ethics, for which commonality of agreement is an absolute prerequisite. Seriously, pick two, and have them write down, separately, their Top 5 ethical axioms--when there's no correlation, realize there isn't specifically because they never wanted to pursue any correlation, because regardless of how many times they might use the word "ethics", they absolutely never wanted anything resembling a functional ethics to be put into practice, that could apply to themselves. That's why it was never pursued, that's why there's no similarity on their respective lists. They want the antithesis of ethics, and that's what they have, as verifiable at any time. Trying to bluff what their real objectives are with empty claims, well, just doesn't really work in the long run.
But, yeah, thanks for the reminder at least someone is framing this in the context of a goal "progress". It's important.
Dream on.
Again, everything I said, precisely accurate, precisely correct according to theism, precisely correct according to basic mathematics.
When you have those 64 examples, let me know. Until then, you have billions against you. And, of course, as you know, I never claimed I would "abandon" it, only that it would require me to reevaluate some core assumptions.
Don't even try to convince me of of "defying God". What I -know- by direct experience of such isn't going to be ludicrously dissuaded by the tortured equivocations of a random Anonymous Coward.
What? Your second two "examples" aren't even vaguely similar to the question posted.
I'll stop making the argument as soon as it's refuted. It hasn't been, and claiming it has when it hasn't, isn't the same. Including in this case.
If you are modifying DNA, you are doing design, and the resulting organisms are designed. This process is distinct from "descent", as "descent" specifies a nature fully captured by standard reproductive descent. It's that simple.
Yes. Flourescent cats are unquestionably a case of design, and not an example of simple standard reproductive descent. Just reality, that's all.
And, I disagree with Young Earth Creationism as well. I'm definitely OEC.
My response had a specific context, regardless of what you might make up that the context was. The clear notion was the construction of a False Dichotomy Fallacy presenting science as the exclusive valid means of acquiring knowledge. I presented a challenge to the application of scientific methods in response. No, in no way am I suggesting religion is the only approach, and thereby falling for the False Dichotomy I was arguing against.
It is a remarkable prediction. Theists have the flexibility of allegorical interpretation, naturalists do not. The figure was given, thousands of years in advance, and has held correct with specifically the digits of accuracy offered. With only one possible try. This is a major difficulty to explain, it is not a case of random guesses being provided and one happening to hit. It is, quite simply, very significant evidence.
You're just dancing around two positions, neither of which you will take, to semi-address issues you alone know in the face of compelling evidence you have directly at hand. You seem to want to semi-accept theism, or something... fine. The remarkable nature of the prediction remains just as remarkable as it is.
Sorry, a little too much Tilt to drink here tonight.
Should have been structured and posted as proper HTML, and should have read "self-contradictory statements".
Other than that, completely accurate. Even if we have to wait awhile for the rational, moral outcome for you.
debating with a religious psychopath who also happens to be a family member that I love
On another note, with statements like this, do you -really- think you should continue to exist?
Really?
Not even completely-appropriately disowned, as a complete emotional and economic parasite?
Understood, and in this case the population size existing at the time represents the "number of entries". This still resolves to a specific probability, given that.
That is, ultimately, probably, quantifiable. When we get to the point of quantifying all the factors, we'll plug it into an equation, and see what the numbers are.
Until then, my position remains the same. "Evolution occurs" as a general statement, is absolutely true, while "-only- evolution occurs" (that is, we need refer only to naturalism mechanisms to account for all cases of biological structures) remains unverified and untested, and as such should not be accepted as demonstrated, as a question of fundamental correct application of the criteria of science.
So, no argument, admitted fail, next.
"If the numbers can change"... maybe you can elaborate on this, because it sounds to me like you are stretching an analogy to a point that simply doesn't apply to the constraints at hand. Each mutation has a finite probability, a combination of such mutations has a probability of the product of each individually. So far, simple math. Survivability at each generation, if proposed occurring individually, or the above probability as represented as a product if proposes as occurring in a single organism.
The probabilities are exactly what they are, mathematically, regardless of inapplicable analogies. Fortunately, once our modeling of the chemistry, mutations required, and the relevant population size becomes precise enough, we'll just hard-calculate what the specific probability numbers are. Then everyone can make their own appraisals of credulity.
As for being "lied to", well, of course you have no possible way of knowing my history, so your supernatural claims to psychic knowledge might be something for you to look at, but... indeed, I have asked for proof from the relevant entity able to provide it, and duly received it. That you haven't, and do not know, is not even -possibly- relevant to the fact I have. What you can validly claim, and cannot, your psychic powers notwithstanding, have been well-defined by the subject of epistemology. I'd suggest a refresher.
I've addressed this in other comments, but in brief, if "common descent" means "anything derived by any means from DNA", common descent becomes unfalsifiable.
To me, "descent" means, unmodified reproductive descent. If you want to expand that into the unfalsifiable and scientifically useless, feel free. But it hardly benefits science.
As for there being no evidence, well, there simply is. The Cambrian Explosion and the rate of evolution simply is evidence. Note I said "evidence", not "proof", so don't do that standard redirect. Please also note that something being "evidence" does not depend on the ultimate factual disposition of the matter, in this case or any other, including those 99% of directly-parallel circumstances, every single day, you'd immediately call the equivalent of "evidence", just as long as it didn't have any possible association for you with "religion". Proper use of words, proper use of logic, a tiny bit of objectivity. All I'm looking for here.
Okay, let's propose that this trend is valid as expressed, and taken to the endpoint extreme, and this cultural subset simply kills you all en masse.
From a Darwinian perspective, they've simply increased the propagation rate of their DNA. What I'm curious about is what -your- stance has as any form of objection to this outcome at all, let alone that probably, from a Natural Selection perspective, them doing this to you would be genetically recommended.
Sure, horrible for you personally, but good in the only objective sense you have to refer to, Darwinian outcomes. And, of course, that good that would be objective would be the only thing that objectively matters in any way.
How do you resolve this for yourself, personally, without resorting to vague subjective principles without any basis or justification within your naturalist metaphysics?
If your "rights" aren't grounded in a metaphysical basis, as they are explicitly justified by historically in, at least, American society, what basis do you have to demonstrate they exist at all? I submit you have "rights" solely to the degree that nobody notices you aren't actively disclaiming you have them--and you have de facto respect for them specifically -to the degree- people -refuse to accept what you insist on for yourself-. You accept them by indirect assimilation, then reject the underlying justification, and... what? Hope nobody notices you are disclaiming any basis for them for yourself?
I know a couple-dozen immediately-refutable propositions on how one can claim individual rights, without the underpinning of a metaphysics including a transcendentally powerful entity providing them by fiat. What I don't know is the breakdown of personal views among these untenable arguments. What is yours?
Do you have "rights"? Why would I think such a thing actually exists? Can you point to it, let me scientifically measure it, so I can verify that?
Sure, this could be seen as an "extremist" view, which, of course, hardly matters if it's just actually extremely accurate.
So, what say you? What attribute can you specify that justifies you being treated ethically differently from the rest of the DNA permutations on the Linnaean Taxonomy? Provided you don't have such a differentiator, and therefore none should be rationally applied to you in your case, I'm certainly still willing to promise you respect for your rights equivalent to what you gave to the morally-equivalent-according-to-you cow you ate for lunch.
So... what say you?
Okay, now moving past the irrelevant personal critique spice up with and Appeal to Authority and Ad Hominem fallacies...
Exact same question--is it your position that the probability of 100 mutations occurring in a single organism, as opposed to these 100 occurring over 200 generations, are equivalent? If so, are you thereby opposed to the position of mainstream evolutionary biology?
Don't care in the least about your parading your supposed qualifications that exempt you from even deigning to answer a troublesome question. Just answer the question.
The room gets positively chilly the moment the words "macro" or "micro" are brought up. Because guess what? Even if those terms were appropriated from actual biology, they have long since fallen out of use precisely because they have been appropriated.
I'm curious--how would you propose I differentiate this "chilliness" from abject awareness in the "other side" that their argument is erroneous, and psychologically preparing to equivocate and dissemble and misrepresent the (perhaps more reasonable) positions of -their own field-?
Apart from the wider discussion, I find this fascinating. You precisely describe -the very definition- of symptoms of evasion, and present that as your evidence they are comfortably correct.
I conclude "the way they act is obvious evidence of misrepresentation", you conclude "the way they act is obvious evidence of their truthfulness", with -the exact same- input. Is it possible we both can actually honestly believe these diametrically-opposed positions? An interesting sideline discussion, someday...
But anyway...
As for what I believe, though of course irrelevant to a -scientific- discussion of the questions at hand, it wouldn't matter at all to the viability of my overall worldview. To me, like a car factory, designing a system that produces an entity is equivalent to designing the particular end result. There's little conceptual difference between me saying "individual biological forms were designed" and saying "the process that produced individual biological forms, evolution, was designed". The questions of particular acts of design applying to particular biology would be fascinating from a -scientific- perspective, however--precisely as we see people trying to ensure we never investigate this, and thereby damage science, on the supposed behalf of science.
I have no need to find "gaps", because my worldview works equally well with or without "gaps". This was just something that Dawkins wanted to make up about theism to fit an argument he was prepared to type something about for some book-cash. Not actually true at all.
Well, interesting, but it seems if this is your stance, it is false right at the root.
You are saying that 100 mutations occurring in a single organism, is of equivalent probability to 100 mutations occurring in 200 generations? Well, no, simply false as a matter of chemistry, and additionally contradicting the core proposed mechanism of mainstream evolutionary thought.
I'd like the link to Dawkins--he's often wrong, but this is an unexpected level of -astonishingly- wrong to me.
I have to say... I deeply enjoyed this.
I've never seen an argument that is basically exactly the same as saying "There's no difference between you winning a coin toss and winning the lottery, they're both probability, idiot" sustained with such conviction.
No, macro- and micro- evolution are absolutely quantitatively distinct due to the probabilities involved regarding the number of mutually-reinforcing mutations that must occur for the necessary outcome, while maintaining survivability.
To do a definitional two-step and claim that "macro-evolution" can be equivalently called "speciation" (well, no, but let's leave that aside--I don't want to interfere with the acceptability of a word now that you personally used it rather than another term from someone else you say says the same thing), and then stating we've seen speciation -of bacteria-, and then inferring that addresses the probability issue of "macro-evolution" is just astonishing in it's sheer evasive bluster.
Follow the probabilities of the necessary mutations. That's all anyone on either side is contending, redefine, reject terms, propose other terms, whatever. It's all evasion outside of this.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I fully accept "evolution occurs" (testable, scientific), and do not accept "only evolution occurs" (untestable, unscientific, and unfortunately for some absolutely required for their worldview's viability), so I am not contending with evolution per se, just your desperate overreach into the untestable and unscientific.