Arete

The clarification I've requested is because rather than addressing actual arguments, Didymus is using a general rejection of source material as "ad populum" and "circular" - and now this has expanded to a sweeping accusation that scientists are routinely "cooking the books or outright lying." This tactic is simply not good enough. Argumentum ad populum refers to a specific logical fallacy by which something is given as true because a lot of people believe it to be so. If you want to level this at a secondary source, like Wikipedia, you need to cite precisely where the article states that something is true because a lot of people believe it - as opposed to a lot of data supporting it. Furthermore, the citations this argumentative style has been leveled at include experimental data, an explanation as to how an experiment can be an appeal to popular opinion is needed. If this is being expanded to an accusation that this experimental data has been fabricated or dishonestly reported, specifics need to be proven, otherwise it's simply guilt by supposed association.

In my two posts I used citations from: - The UC Davis Genome center - The Wikipedia page on common descent - The peer reviewed journal, Science - The peer reviewed journal, Current Biology - The peer reviewed journal, Nature -The high school teaching resource, Schmoop Could you please justify why these sources are not "evidence" 1. Could you please point out precisely where the Wikipedia page on common descent is circular? 2. As above, Wikipedia was clearly not the only source provided. 3. Could you please justify why peer reviewed scientific articles are "ad populum"? The reporting of original studies would appear to be the precise opposite of ad populum... It would appear you are blanketly dismissing sources as invalid without actually determining what the sources are, let alone their veracity. I quoted you verbatim in post #23. That quote was specifically a rejection macro-evolution - which is what I addressed. Shifting the goalposts of the discussion to abiogeneisis and claiming deficiency is a logical fallacy. But while we're on the topic of sources and evidence, you'll need to start practicing what you preach, and citing some of your assertions so we know what you're referring to. I.e., Not sure what you're talking about - citation please. a) Snakes don't have vestigial legs b) Cetaceans do not use theirs during reproduction. Again it's unclear what you're referring to - citation please.

I'm not discussing claims. I am discussing evidence. data. observations. There is no appeal to popularity, there is appeal to multiple independent observations which support the same conclusion. In answer to the title of the thread: "Must evolution [and the big bang] be taken on faith?" has a clear answer - "No". There's multiple lines of evidence which are consistent with evolutionary theory. The analogy you suggest doesn't really make sense, and I fear suggests you're unfamiliar with what the field of biogeography encompasses. It is the study of the spatial and temporal distribution of organisms, and the process which drive the changes in distributions. Current and past distributions of organisms support common ancestry. For example, relationships between the biota of Africa, South America and the Antipodes are consistent with common ancestry of these organisms of the prehistoric super-continent Gondwana. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5550/2348.short This is simply more argumentum ad ignoratum. You're saying that speciation can occur, but only if the morphology of the extant species isn't dissimilar enough to invoke your ridicule. It's an arbitrary line in the sand, similar to believing in weeks, but not years. It also ignores the multiple other lines of evidence which support common ancestry, especially of vertebrates. Observations like what? Negate? I'm confused here - eukaryotic cell structure and function is by and large common across the group. It's not cherry picking to point out the similarities - most of the structure and function of a eukaryotic cell is not different across the taxonomic kingdom. http://www.shmoop.com/biology-cells/most-eukaryotic-cells.html This is not to mention the fact that the genomes of eukaryotic organisms are highly similar, even in large, non-coding regions. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098220300558X Or that the morphology of extinct species is consistent with common ancestry http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/nature11080.html etc. As I stated at the beginning of this post - I'm discussing evidence, from multiple, independent sources which are consistent with common ancestry. Then it should be simple to offer a rebuttal that doesn't rely on incredulity. Even an example of an observation inconsistent with common ancestry would be a starting point.

How are you going to ensure that basic research generates a profit?

This is simply an argument from ignorance. Common ancestry between vertebrates and plants is supported by multiple lines of evidence, e.g.: - Phylogenetic analysis supports common ancestry. - Biogeographic studies support common ancestry. - Common developmental processes across eukaryotes support common ancestry. - Common cellular structures across Eukaryota (e.g., cytoskeleton, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi bodies, vacuoles, lysosomes, peroxisomes, the nuclear envelope) supports common ancestry - Conserved cytogenetic structure (i.e., a genome consisting of multiple linear chromosomes) supports common ancestry. -The common presence of mitochondria supports common ancestry. - Common translational machinery (i.e., 80S ribosomes) supports common ancestry. - The orthology of the bulk of eukaryotic genomes strongly supports common ancestry. To name a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent Inferring common ancestry across the tree of life is the most parsimonious way to explain all of the observational data, gathered from a diverse range of sources we have. It is not a blind leap of faith - characterizing it as such would suggest that the multiple lines of supporting evidence have not been considered.

Just as an update for the non-Australians, the LNP won the election, and for the first time since its introduction in 1931 there will be no minister for Science in Australian government. While details of how Federal funding for science will be managed are yet to be released, there's dark clouds looming.

So you initially claim that there's not enough evidence to allow you to believe in evolutionary theory: However now the rejection is based on a "gut feeling" instead? I'd be interested to know what you think "doesn't add up" about evolutionary theory, and would suspect that the evidence in support of the perceived gap is considerably greater than any of the claims made in this thread thus far.

Actually, the tactic used in the ensuing drama after the paper was published was to simply make the baseless claim that Prof. Lenski and his co-authors made up the data.

Like the Lenski experiment?

"The only difference between a tattooed person and a person who isn't tattooed is that a tattooed person doesn't care if you're tattooed or not."

So there's enough "observed" evidence to support the tower of Babel being able to control the weather, but not for the theory of evolution?

So it starts by using the Bible as a source of factual evidence, uses numerological methods to link events, involves an all controlling, mystical "force" and culminates in a global conspiracy theory?

So Australia goes to the polls tomorrow to elect a new federal government. The opposition released their budget plans 48 hours before the election including this gem: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/abbott-vows-to-cut-futile-research/story-fni0cx12-1226710934260 A play straight out of the far right GOP playbook: http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/04/u.s.-lawmaker-proposes-new-criteria-choosing-nsf-grants As a natural born Australian working as a scientist overseas, this is horrifying. Firstly, the ARC has a rigorous peer review system which awards less than 25% of grants. So what our opposition leader is saying is that not only does he not trust the country's top scientists to know what proposals are worth pursuing, but also that he and his party, as a laypeople know better. Having politicians, rather than scientists decide on what to fund is not only based fundamentally on the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (i.e. I don't personally understand how this research is useful, therefore it is not useful) leads to an extremely dangerous situation by which science funding can be manipulated for political or personal gain. This is flagrantly displayed in Tony Abbott's (the opposition leader) policy release speech where he notes that he will redirect funding to dementia research - a disease which his family has a history of. Dementia research is good in itself, but Abbott has been explaining that it is important because *he* could get it. Additionally, the policy displays a flagrant lack of understanding of the process of scientific discovery. Even if your goal is disease eradication, curiosity-driven basic research provides virtually all of the theoretical and practical building blocks which go into applied disease research. And if you want to understand where we have come from as a global community and where we are going (and if that is where we want to be!) then you need to fund the humanities. For example, a colleague of mine recently used research on the night time entertainment activities of people in sub-Saharan Africa to investigate malaria infection. Aid money gets used to hand out insecticide infused bed nets to protect people from malaria, on the assumption they go to bed when it gets dark. Only the humanities research showed that people were staying up in outdoor bars, and thus were not protected from malaria. So without basic research, you wouldn't have the pyrethroid insecticides to put in the bed nets, without applied research you wouldn't know how to infuse a bed net with them, and without "frivolous" humanities research you'd be scratching your head wondering why it didn't work, and how you managed to piss all that taxpayer, foreign aid money up against a wall. Finally, it shows a complete lack of understanding of how global the scientific workforce is. I would say that roughly 60-70% of my cohort have worked internationally, and that moving back to Australia is a conscious decision driven by a combination of lifestyle and career motivations. If you damage Australian science funding, you will lose your top people. I've already spoken to two Australian colleagues who are currently overseas who are unlikely to return if this happens, and two more who are considering a move overseas as their next career move if it does. It may not be a major issue for most Australians, many may even agree with Abbott. But for me and my family this is THE election issue now, and may dictate whether or not I ever live in my country of birth again. If I remain overseas this is the last Australian election I will be eligible to vote in. For a country that regards itself as a developed, technological leader in science, this is the one of the worst possible policies conceivable.

I kind of view this forum as something of an educational tool, and an outreach platform for people who are knowledgeable about science to interact with people who are curious about science. A lot of readers who wind up on these boards are not the active participants, but people who have come to a particular thread via Google. For that end, I think it's at least important to point out the flaws in a crackpot argument, even if 9/10 crackpots ignore or dismiss genuine flaws in their proposals. I think it becomes obvious quite quickly, for a cognizant and open minded reader when someone is failing to address the criticisms of their position, and hopefully casual readers will see the flaws in such arguments by witnessing such discourses. On the other hand, I've given up on several occasions when someone repeatedly refuses to engage logically, or address critiques, and continues to engage in illogical discourse or repetition of fallacies, etc. and I think that's where reporting and leaving it up to the mods to address is the right action. One tactic I personally find particularly frustrating is the "wall of text copypasta" where a large body of text is lifted, like a essay, or a an extensive irrelevant reference list, etc. where refuting every single argument in the post would take considerable time and effort, but the poster refuses to accept any validity to a partial refutation - or simply responds with another copied wall of poor argumentation and effectively tries to "baffle the forum with BS". That particular style of debate is very time consuming and frustrating to deal with, and tends to, at least in my mind, refute itself by proxy - even if that in of itself isn't logically flawless.

I have no idea regarding common evolutionary history - but systems to deliver things or connect cells in multicellular organisms - such as the insect respiratory system, vertebrate circulatory/nervous/lymphatic systems, plant vascular systems all seem to have a degree of morphological homology - I'd hazard a guess at it being resultant of convergence due to similarity in function, rather than parallel evolution though.

Given it's my profession to study evolution I think I certainly give it the respect it deserves. I think you're unwilling to consider basic insect physiology - the purpose of the tracheal network in an insect is to allow air to dissipate through the insect's body, so that air can reach cells - much in the same way that a vertebrate circulatory system's purpose is to allow oxygenated blood to reach the cells of the vertebrate's body. A large diameter tube though an insect's body will not achieve this function. As such in order to achieve your unidirectional airflow proposal, the suggested "giant" insects you're proposing would need a respiratory system substantially different from both the insects observed in the fossil record and the present day - i.e. substantially different from any insect respiratory system currently known. Also, the quotes you're using to support the assertion that "admit that the evidence is scant on the "oxygen-limitation" hypothesis" don't actually suggest that at all, and come from a popular science article and not the primary research itself. I would also outright disagree with the first quote - studies on diffusion limitations on insect body size date back to the early 1900's: www.jstor.org/stable/2810299 and there's a plethora of studies supporting the hypothesis: e.g. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/32/13198.short http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/62968 http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1690/1937.short So, the evidence you cite (and other work on the topic) provide a well supported explanation of why giant insects DON'T currently exist, rather than provide a platform to speculate that they still do. The irony of suggesting that rejection of your proposal is based on "unvalidated guesswork" is that what you're asking us to accept is that UFO sightings are explained by giant, luminescent beetles no one has ever actually observed, which have evolved completely novel respiratory systems also never observed in any insect, past or present.

The tracheal tubes of insects look similar to our circulatory systems, in that they start out as large tubes and branch until they deliver air to individual cells e.g. As such a large tube straight through an insect's body would not function effectively to deliver air to cells. An open ended invertebrate tracheal system would have to function in an entirely different manner to those currently known. It's kind of like speculating that a population of elephants evolved their ears to enable them to fly, and that's what UFOs are.

Not really. Tracheal tubes are one-way tubes so blowing in the surface of them does little to increase dispersion. Even it it did, as soon as the insect came to rest it would begin suffocating. To repeat, the initial link actually provides a plausible explanation of why giant insects DON'T currently exist, rather than provide a platform to speculate that they still do.

Insects do not actively "breathe" the way that vertebrates do. They rely on natural gas dispersion through their rigid tracheal tubes to fuel cellular respiration. We know that gas dispersion decreases along the length of a tube. As such, there becomes a point where a tube is too long for natural gas dispersion to deliver enough oxygen for effective cellular respiration. This in turn means that there is an upper limit on the length of tracheal tubules in insects, and therefore their body size. It therefore follows that, if in the past, the quotient of oxygen in the atmosphere was increased, the maximal length of a tubule effective for respiration would increase, thus allowing larger insects. This is used as a potential explanation of the larger insects seen in the fossil record. Therefore, if the original evidence you're presenting is deemed correct, and I see no reason for it to not be, it actually provides a clear explanation as to why super sized insects are not extant in the present day.

For someone who claims to be a rational person you do engage in a lot of logically fallacious arguments. The above is a known as shifting the burden of proof. You've made the positive claim that meditation is religious in nature. It's up to you to substantiate that claim, not others to find proof for a negative statement.

You've used multiple logically fallacious arguments, many of which I have pointed out and provided you links to explain how they are fallacious arguments. These are invalid arguments here so I politely requested you stop using them. It's a positive statement, and this being a science forum you're expected to substantiate positive assertions with evidence. When evidence was requested, you obfuscated. You're left with two options - you can retract the statement as un-evidenced opinion, or provide evidence to support it. Until then you're posting speculation in the mainstream science forums. At this stage there is no reason to take your accusations seriously, as you have provided no evidence to support them.

This is simply appeal to ridicule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule Is it possible to cease with the logical fallacies and can we please have some citations to evidence your points in post #7?

The news report written by a journalist on the article has that title. The actual article is entitled "Men’s Oppressive Beliefs Predict Their Breast Size Preferences in Women" implying correlation. Seems your problem is with sensationalist journalism which has switched the predictor with the dependent variable, and used more emotive language.

It's a textbook example. Shifting the goalposts is a logical fallacy by which once the initial claim is questioned, the claim is revised to make a different claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts To paraphrase: You: "psychology says atheism is evil" Me: "Can you cite where it says that?" You: "it follows from how psychologists cite meditation and spirituality as the optimum.." So, you can't actually provide any substantiation of the initial explicit claim, so shift the goalposts to it being an implicit claim, based on yet another fallacy: that it is somehow a fact that psychology "deems non-theism as suspect". Which you've yet to substantiate - you can't simply make sweeping statements like "it's common knowledge that..." or it's a "well known fact that..." you need to provide evidence of these facts. You're again shifting from "psychologists" to "many psychologists" - so which one is it? Also, it therefore should be easy to cite at least one source unequivocally supporting your assertions. You're begging the question here in guessing at the motivations of the authors: how would the authors have known at the outset of their study what their results would be?

First, I'm not a psychologist. 1. That's a shift of the goalposts. You're now stating that psychology did not say that atheism is evil, but making the assumption that suggesting meditation as a treatment infers that stance - which are two very different statements. The fact that this assumption is true has been implictly questioned by other posters as meditation is not necessarily religious. 2. No, I never implied that I did. You made a false equivocation in that by prescribing meditation, psychologists were forcing eastern religion on patients. Meditation is not necessarily religious, just as falafel is not necessarily Islamic. 3. The link you provide is not evidence of your statement. If the church doesn't provide a statement about every instance of rape, does that mean that the church is suddenly in favor of rape? No, it doesn't. Furthermore, if the study was conducted correctly and does indeed show that British men with a preference for bustier women are more prone to higher acceptance of sexism, why would they condemn it?