Public discourse in origins: here be dragons

[Michael_Okoko]

@swamidass

Honestly @Michael_Okoko this doesn’t make much sense to me.

@Michael_Okoko

@BrianLopez

Evidence must be known , it must be learned, but then applied correctly in an all encompassing manner.

Evidence isn’t learned, it is discerned from data. What we learn is how to collect and process data to discern what type of evidence it provides.

Of course evidence is learned, and it is not discerned from data. Rather, we discern interpretations from data. Data that is relevant to our questions is evidence.

My comment makes perfect sense. Scientists propose hypotheses all the time, but need evidence to support or reject those hypotheses. Such evidence cannot be learned or known until you do the research and gather it. That’s my argument. In contrast, Brian says “evidence must be known”.

If by learning evidence, you mean being told about phylogenetic trees and other things that support evolution, then that surely happens, but I was talking about evidence which is not known prior to research.

@swamidass

@Michael_Okoko

Creationists acknowledge phylogenetic trees are evidence for common descent as long as it doesn’t connect all extant organisms and excludes humans. When it connects humans and all extant organisms, they blatantly ignore it.

That is not quite correct. There is a range here.

I was speaking loosely here, but I was referring to YECism.

@swamidass

@Michael_Okoko

Valerie ignores evidence for and misunderstands evolution. However, its unlikely her participation here won’t keep her from regurgitating some creationist tropes.

I don’t think that’s true. @thoughtful is making the best effort she can to understand and engage the evidence. She does trust creationist scientists quite a bit, but she is also doing the best she can to think for herself

I guess we can test this hypothesis. @thoughtful, if I showed you a phylogenetic tree showing ancestry of humans and other great apes would you accept it?