Evolutionary Tree

[Mister Agenda]

There you go again.  It's not like correcting you will stop you...but here we go..again.

Common descent is not -assumed- by, or required in, current evolutionary theory, it's a -conclusion- of current evolutionary theory which is overwhelmingly in-evidence.

It is not just a conclusion, it is a necessary conclusion that has wrapped within it many threads that if pulled away will unravel much of the general theory--or at least have to rethink vast stretches of it. So we have a necessary conclusion that is used to as a foundation for ancillary theories that support the conclusion. Would that make it more like an assumption or just circular reasoning. 

And so the link I posted earlier from Sean Carroll, the one that illustrates the difficulties that genetics have introduced to establishing a phylogenetic tree, has no bearing why? Because common decent is a conclusion from overwhelming evidence so we don't have to worry about some facts that don't seem to support the theory right now. (did I use those words correctly this time?)

The conclusion is only necessitated by the mounds of evidence for it. As I have said, we could find a species tomorrow with clear evidence for uncommon descent and it wouldn't invalidate the theory a bit, it would just mean there's another evolutionary tree. Btw, I don't blame you for avoiding trying to refute that point. It's awfully inconvenient to your assertions, after all, and pretty iron-clad, best to ignore it.

Good on you for finally making the slightest effort to be clear, you should be proud.

[RoadRunner79]

@Esquilax:

Just to offer you a puzzle piece to this picture he is haphazardly trying to throw together in case you missed it, RoadRunner thinks scientific research is nothing more than "testimony" that requires "faith" to accept, on par with religious scripture in terms of quality of evidence for things (he stated so in another thread just DAYS ago).  Considering how he is referring to science in THIS thread, he's either a very dishonest or very confused individual, so...yeah, have fun with that.  [emoji41]  

*popcorn*

I made no such comparison. And I stated as much, when you tried to goad me into doing so; on such generalized terms. And I don't think that you made much of a case, that we do not need to rely on transfer of knowledge based on one who experienced a thing, and shares that knowledge with another, nor that their is a certain amount of trust that must be involved.

Now if you have something to add to this conversation, I would ask that you please be more specific. If I am wrong in my thinking, I can't correct anything based on such broad snipes.

[LadyForCamus]

It is not just a conclusion, it is a necessary conclusion that has wrapped within it many threads that if pulled away will unravel much of the general theory--or at least have to rethink vast stretches of it. So we have a necessary conclusion that is used to as a foundation for ancillary theories that support the conclusion. Would that make it more like an assumption or just circular reasoning. 

And so the link I posted earlier from Sean Carroll, the one that illustrates the difficulties that genetics have introduced to establishing a phylogenetic tree, has no bearing why? Because common decent is a conclusion from overwhelming evidence so we don't have to worry about some facts that don't seem to support the theory right now. (did I use those words correctly this time?)

The conclusion is only necessitated by the mounds of evidence for it. As I have said, we could find a species tomorrow with clear evidence for uncommon descent and it wouldn't invalidate the theory a bit, it would just mean there's another evolutionary tree. Btw, I don't blame you for avoiding trying to refute that point. It's awfully inconvenient to your assertions, after all, and pretty iron-clad, best to ignore it.

Good on you for finally making the slightest effort to be clear, you should be proud.

I quoted the wrong response here, sorry!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Whateverist]

When you use the same word with multiple meanings in the same sentence without making your meaning-switching explicit, you are equivocating and it's a form of lying when you do it deliberately and understand that it causes confusion. Since you complain about every third atheist complaining about this, you're aware. That just makes you a persistent liar.

Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory. The theory of gravity is a theory.

You don't have to be this stupid, it's a choice.

Wow, I've never seen MA get this worked up before. I have to think that means you're less laid back that you let on.

I thought what he meant was fairly clear from the context.  

Now if one is making that argument that in science; evolution is only a theory (in regards to scientific classification), and therefore without evidence.  This would be equivocation.  However on the other end, when someone claims that evolution is a fact (or classified as a scientific theory), I normally ask them to define what they mean by evolution.  One can equally equivocate everything under the umbrella of term "evolution" to deceptively equate fact under one meaning, with another meaning.  

One might also take issue with equating the word's theory with fact, if that is your intention.

Funny, other people don't have a problem not using the word in different ways in the same sentence. It's easy if you have the slightest care about not being ambiguous.

By this time you should understand the difference between 'evolution the fact' and 'evolution the theory'. Do you get this confused over 'gravity the fact' and 'gravity the theory'?

No one is getting 'fact' and 'theory' confused but the people with a stake in confusing them. No one, and I mean no one, on this thread is equivocating 'evolution is a fact' as 'the theory of evolution is a fact' except you and Steve. I wonder why that is?

MA is the most patient, even tempered person I've ever cyber-met. Maybe you'd better come clean, motorcycle guy. What are you here for and who sent you?

[Whateverist]

The conclusion is only necessitated by the mounds of evidence for it. As I have said, we could find a species tomorrow with clear evidence for uncommon descent and it wouldn't invalidate the theory a bit, it would just mean there's another evolutionary tree. Btw, I don't blame you for avoiding trying to refute that point. It's awfully inconvenient to your assertions, after all, and pretty iron-clad, best to ignore it.

Good on you for finally making the slightest effort to be clear, you should be proud.

It's amazing how you guys cry poopy-pants about being misrepresented after you literally jump threads and change POV in which ever way most benefits your pre-conclusions.  It's fine; I'll just link to the thread for anyone who is interested and has two hours of their life to waste reading 20 pages of your equivocating and conflation.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-44065-page-56.html

So it looks like what we have here are a couple of apologetics weasels.

[The Grand Nudger]

I made no such comparison.   And I stated as much, when you tried to goad me into doing so; on such generalized terms. And I don't think that you made much of a case, that we do not need to rely on transfer of knowledge based on one who experienced a thing, and shares that knowledge with another, nor that their is a certain amount of trust that must be involved.

Now if you have something to add to this conversation, I would ask that you please be more specific.   If I am wrong in my thinking, I can't correct anything based on such broad snipes.

You don't seem to be able to "correct" your thinking based upon specific and repeated elaborations either.  So where does that leave you?

Temet nosce.

[LadyForCamus]

It's amazing how you guys cry poopy-pants about being misrepresented after you literally jump threads and change POV in which ever way most benefits your pre-conclusions.  It's fine; I'll just link to the thread for anyone who is interested and has two hours of their life to waste reading 20 pages of your equivocating and conflation.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-44065-page-56.html

So it looks like what we have here are a couple of apologetics weasels.

I believe so, yes. At least that is my impression based on both of their conduct around here lately. They are very sneaky about picking a position on ANYTHING and sticking with it, it seems.

Or...even stating one to begin with, lol.

[Whateverist]

Geez, Rhythm. How can the guy muddy the waters and maintain appearances when you go making such well fitting broad swipes. Not very xtian of you.

[LadyForCamus]

@Esquilax:

Just to offer you a puzzle piece to this picture he is haphazardly trying to throw together in case you missed it, RoadRunner thinks scientific research is nothing more than "testimony" that requires "faith" to accept, on par with religious scripture in terms of quality of evidence for things (he stated so in another thread just DAYS ago).  Considering how he is referring to science in THIS thread, he's either a very dishonest or very confused individual, so...yeah, have fun with that.  [emoji41]  

*popcorn*

I made no such comparison. And I stated as much, when you tried to goad me into doing so; on such generalized terms. And I don't think that you made much of a case, that we do not need to rely on transfer of knowledge based on one who experienced a thing, and shares that knowledge with another, nor that their is a certain amount of trust that must be involved.

Now if you have something to add to this conversation, I would ask that you please be more specific. If I am wrong in my thinking, I can't correct anything based on such broad snipes.

It's amazing how you guys cry poopy-pants about being misrepresented after you literally jump threads and change POV in which ever way most benefits your pre-conclusions. It's fine; I'll just link to the thread for anyone who is interested and has two hours of their life to waste reading 20 pages of you equivocating.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-44065-page-56.html

[RoadRunner79]

I made no such comparison.   And I stated as much, when you tried to goad me into doing so; on such generalized terms. And I don't think that you made much of a case, that we do not need to rely on transfer of knowledge based on one who experienced a thing, and shares that knowledge with another, nor that their is a certain amount of trust that must be involved.

Now if you have something to add to this conversation, I would ask that you please be more specific.   If I am wrong in my thinking, I can't correct anything based on such broad snipes.

It's amazing how you guys cry poopy-pants about being misrepresented after you literally jump threads and change POV in which ever way most benefits your pre-conclusions.  It's fine; I'll just link to the thread for anyone who is interested and has two hours of their life to waste reading 20 pages of you equivocating.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-44065-page-56.html

Again, Please be more specific... what do you think that I have drastically changed points of view on here?