I hereby do publicly acknowledge that animals with different genetic make up are not able to reproduce offspring in the same way as animals with like genetics can.
Which is not, of course, contradictory to common descent.
3 Likes
Sure, if you can explain how the changes occurred by reproductive and other cellular mechanisms.
Again, this is irrelevant to the issue of UCA, which is about the relationships between clades and not how the differences between those clades came about. If you want to talk about God’s guidance vs. unguided evolution, that’s fine, but not relevant to the issue of UCA vs. special creation (separate ancestry).
You have no idea just how comparable creationism is to flat earth, do you? Alright, check this out:
I, for one, can not directly observe the globular shape of Earth. From every vantage point I have ever been to, it looks rather flat, if I can view into the distance at all.
Sure, things disappear bottom up over the horizon, and I have no explanation as to why they would given a flat geometry. But me not having a working model of my own does not imply that the globe model is plausible, now, does it? And besides, it’s not like the globers actually do have a complete model of atmospheric optical effects, and they still get respect in the wider scientific community nonetheless.
The surface looks essentially indistinguishable from flat to the eyes of any casual observer, even when as high above it as commercial plane cruising altitudes. It is not until we are shown admittedly doctored images from alleged “outer space” that we can see something globe-like, but those are published for the whole world by a very select few organizations, and taken by an even smaller set of alleged space-farers. It’s “mountains of evidence”, apparently, but all from a very narrow source closed to the vast majority of even highly qualified and educated people. To say nothing of the accessibility of that evidence itself. Have you even tried reading an astronomy paper?
And you’ll notice, I’m not even raising actual flat-earther talking points here. A case like yours against common descent is trivial to raise against the globe Earth. And, with all due respect, I have serious doubts, for the time being, that you could actually dismiss a case like that on the grounds of your own functioning scientific understanding of Newtonian gravitation.
2 Likes
Are you claiming that universal common descent as defined implies no reproductive relationship between species?
And the crazy train goes around and around its circular track, while the scenery never changes.
4 Likes
Let’s just end this here. The distinction has been made to you many times before and I see no reason to do so again.
3 Likes
But we use flat-earth working models all the time. They used to be stored in our glove compartments. Today, we generally use them on our phones.
They are called maps. This is how the term “model” is used in a scientific context; it has utility, even if we know that on some level it is simply wrong.
1 Like
Oh of that I have become utterly and permanently convinced. Bill is a lost cause unworthy of any response.
1 Like
Is it?
Well, I finally gave in and looked it up in the Oxford English Dictionary. There is usage I.4.a. that might just about qualify maps, except it specifies ‘three-dimensional’, which is true only of relief maps and not the kind used to navigate roads, and ‘accurate proportion’, which is true only for maps of sufficiently small regions, where Earth’s curvature would cause almost no detectable distortion at all.
Another usage is I.8.a., which qualifies maps only if we loosely interpret the territory as qualifying for ‘system’ or ‘situation’. It is perfectly consistent with how I was using the term ‘model’, however, for how little or how much that counts, and is inherited from the much older but similar usage I.1.b. from the early rennaissance.
But none of this matters. ‘Correct’ usage – if there be any such thing at all – is which ever most effectively communicates the intended message. If by some official Glossary of Science™ my usage is uncommon, I can absolutely live with that, because, as I already explained, aligning with any such glossary is not among my goals when picking words to express myself.
Now, if you can demonstrate how my oh-so-incorrect usage impeded any communication between myself and anybody else conversing with me, I’d be most appreciative.
Conversely, if you cannot name who and when I failed to accurately transfer my meaning to, because of my particular usage of ‘model’ you find so objectionable within the context of any discussion that’s been had on this forum, I would ask you to kindly get all the way off my back about this. And I’d much appreciate that, too.
It is.
That’s some quote-mining there. That particular usage you chose is not scientific, as made clear by the examples in the dictionary:
Enter Saturne with wedges of gold and siluer, models of ships, and buildings, bow and arrowes, &c.
Menelaus with fiftie ships, sent him only one, with the models of the other in clay, to colour his perjury.
Cooper…begun his lecture upon the body of a ship—which my having of a modell in the office is of great use to me, and very pleasant and useful it is.
If they were all cut out, and placed one above another…you would…have the Model of a true pair of Stairs.
Prometheus, who…is feign’d by the Poets to have first form’d Man, that is to say, form’d the Model of a Man by the help of Water and Earth; and then stole Fire from the Sun to animate the Model.
They…force them to buy…models of the grave of Christ.
The university’s collection of mechanical and philosophical models.
A model of William Tell stands opposite another of his son. They are formed of wood.
At his feet is a small model of a hill.
The author appears to be able to make everything, from a model of the Palace of Justice in Brussels to a bust of his aunt, out of cheese.
He had a model of the perfect woman built in rubber—life-size.
Often she will dream some dainty pasteboard model, a city-planner’s city,…so tiny her bootsoles could wipe out neighbourhoods at a step.
Not a single one of those examples are scientific.
I.8.a obviously applies to maps. The earth is a system. Navigating it is a situation.
I.8.a. A simplified or idealized description or conception of a particular system, situation, or process, often in mathematical terms, that is put forward as a basis for theoretical or empirical understanding, or for calculations, predictions, etc.; a conceptual or mental representation of something. Frequently with modifying word.
It can’t possibly be, because you explicitly denied having a model (quoted below) while you use the model in your pocket in that very same context. Such word salad greatly hampers communication about science. I infer from your verbosity and aggressively incorrect language that you lack the most basic understanding of the scientific method:
As I have noted before (and you avoid addressing), you are repeatedly reinforcing one of the most common semantic lies being spread by the pseudoscientific ID political movement by using “model” similarly to Bill’s misusage. You asked for clarification, remember?
Isn’t a “normal” model basically just some sort of facsimile of the real thing. And couldn’t a scientific model be said to also be a model in that sense? I mean what is a scientific model anyway that makes the use of an already existing word appropriate, if it isn’t because it’s use in the scientific vernacular has some relevant semblance to the colloquial sense?
1 Like
Again, under sufficiently loose usage of ‘system’, fair enough. Is a map a ‘description’ or a ‘conception’, then? I don’t find it ‘obvious’ at all, that definition I.8.a. should apply to maps, but this is entirely besides the point, so I’ll move on.
Then it should be greatly simple to point to one example of my word usage having failed to communicate my meaning in one or more discussions on this forum.
I remember stating that I do not care about the political implications of any of this. I remember stating that my goal in choosing words is communication. I remember asking you to provide an example of where I failed to meet that goal even once because of my usage of terms. And I remember asking you to get off my back, if you cannot do that. I will gladly correct any and all mistakes I made that can be pointed out to me, but you wanting me to use words in some different unspecified way is not a mistake I made or can be made to feel a need to correct. So until you can give me something to actually work on, this is a waste of time for both of us.
And you are failing at it.
And I have done so above.
I just did above. Your apparent need to write 3-4x as many words in response isn’t a waste of time?
In the broadest sense, but it has a more rigorous definition in science, biology, and medicine. For example, those who formulate clinical diagnostic and prognostic models are perfectly aware that their models do not include every relevant parameter–what matters is that they provide useful results. This is typically done using a training set and a testing set. How is a map not a scientific model in the same sense?
Again, the statement “All models are wrong, but some are useful” is not a joke.
It does. My point is that @Gisteron’s claim that he had no model is flat-out false, both in the general and scientific sense. Flat maps fit the scientific definition because most of us know that they are wrong, but find them to be useful anyway.
1 Like