• @Haagel
    link
    -306 months ago

    Removed by mod

    • Patapon Enjoyer
      link
      fedilink
      76 months ago

      Some of these “Philosophical” points are flat out bullshit

      1. Homosexuality isn’t only present in human behavior and there are plenty of explanations, both on an evolutionary and behavioral standpoints, as to why. My favorite is the Gay Uncle Theory.

      2. Who gives a shit? Science is by definition politicized and also by definition it expells myths for obvious reasons

      3. Why? Substantiate that claim

      4. That is not what democracy is founded on. In democracy all men have equal rights and have the same power to vote and be elected. Even in the US when Locke wrote that people disagreed with it, mostly because they liked owning slaves.

      6-7 Substanciate that claim.

      1. Skill issue. You can just as easily disprove it with facts.

      2. Anyone is allowed to challenge and contribute to our understanding of the world. Just be prepared to have your claims be rigorously tested.

      3. Bullshit. It has been observed in natural populations since before we even understood it.

      • @Haagel
        link
        -4
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Removed by mod

        • Patapon Enjoyer
          link
          fedilink
          36 months ago

          Either you have a very weird literal definition of “equal rights” or you’re being purposely obtuse. Trying to equate flaws in implementation of sociopolitical systems to an imaginary lack scientific rigor in an entirely different field is either intellectually dishonest or a fever rant.

      • SteefLem
        link
        fedilink
        96 months ago

        Reasons that person can give. Actual proof however….

    • @cetvrti_magi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      6 months ago
      1. Tree of life is just a way we organize all living things to make things easier for us. And HGT happens only with prokaryotes and certain animals. It really makes things more complicated in some parts of tree of life but that isn’t weird, there will always be some thing that we can’t fully explain. Just because HGT makes things more complicated doesn’t mean that evolution isn’t true.
      2. What are you even talking about here?
      3. Please explain how fossil record fails to prove evolution.
      4. Improbability of what? If two organisms live in same or similar environment it isn’t odd if they have similar adaptations to same or similar environment even if they aren’t closely related. And even if they have similar adaptations that doesn’t mean they are same. Wings of bats, birds and insects are all totally different.
      5. Please explain what is wrong with abiogenesis.
      6. Be more specific.
      7. Give at least one example. Who gave inaccurate prediction and for what specific thing?
      8. If you meant that there are no mechanisms for epigenetics than that’s just wrong, there are many of them.
      9. I don’t know anything about this topic so I can’t comment on it.
      10. This is a lie. Most mutations are neutral. And don’t ignore the fact that mutation can become beneficial with changes in environment.
      11. I read more about this argument and it is stupid. What if certain information is neutral in terms of evolution? Us knowing about evolution isn’t beneficial for survival but it isn’t harmful either. Same goes for creationism, belief in it isn’t beneficial nor harmful from evolutionary standpoint. And don’t forget that evolutionary processes don’t always lead to beneficial changes.
      12. Those things are similar to neutral mutations. Again, evolution doesn’t always lead to beneficial changes.
      13. Everything is politicized, it doesn’t have anything to do with truth.
      14. How? Please explain.
      15. Democracy doesn’t have anything to do with evolution or any natural science.
      16. Please explain.
      17. Please explain.
      18. Explain how.
      19. Everyone can critique it but if someone doesn’t know anything about the subject, their critique isn’t relevant.
      20. That isn’t true.
    • @SmoothSurfer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      -166 months ago

      Why the fuck people did downvote you?!

      Many of evolutionists blame those who are against or suspicious about evolution with zealotry but when they come up with real arguments and questions, you become the zealots. You fucking hypocrites

      • @killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Because it’s a gish gallop of mostly thin or discredited arguments, with the strongest at the top to make it look more impressive than it is.

        And even the strongest are piss poor and largely discredited by actual science.

        “My list of reasons is long” doesn’t make any one of those reasons less shoddy than it already is. “I have used scientific words” doesn’t hold water either.

        • 🐑🇸 🇭 🇪 🇪 🇵 🇱 🇪🐑
          link
          fedilink
          English
          116 months ago

          Anytime I see a person gish galloping I employ a three strikes basis. I will humor their first argument. Maybe their second but if by their third all is consistently bullshit, I consider them to not be worth anyone’s time to “debate” and all further arguments from them in their gish galloping will be disregarded.

          Easy way to avoid that? Don’t Gish Gallop.

          • @killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            36 months ago

            You are far more tolerant than I am. I’d call it a flaw in my approach, but I just found 5 minutes to do a crossword so who’s the real winner? /s

            I’ve tagged them as “dishonest debater” because they have chosen to present themselves as such.

        • @stochasticity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          56 months ago

          I’ve seen this same list listed before, I’m guessing by the same person. I agree with you. These points have simple explanations.

          I get the impression the list is presented the way it is to exhaust anyone wishing to contradict the points. It’s just not worth the time, especially since it is unlikely the person wants to hear explanations.

          The meme is really cringey tho.

          • @killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I get the impression the list is presented the way it is to exhaust anyone wishing to contradict the points

            Yes, this is the definition of a gish gallop.

        • @SmoothSurfer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          -66 months ago

          Instead of answering me, it would be much more helpful to come up with an counter argument to mentioned arguments.

          We may debate, it wont resolve something. Time will reveal what is needed to be known or to be accepted. So go on have fun, scroll through lemmy.

          It is just that, you are lazy so you dont debate and instead you shout out hate. If you are not going to debate and express the opposing side that they are wrong; you are simply an asshole, waste of resources(from my pov of course, it all is relative).

          Have a nice day, btw I am an evolutionist(not that it changes sth).

          • @killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            You’re an evolutionary biologist or a believer in evolution?

            I am the latter and suspect you are too, in which case neither of us should be getting our information on science from an unaccredited stranger on the internet.

            Go and listen to Forrest Valkai or someone else who is actually accredited and actively researching those topics.

            I’ll ignore your ad hominems as, they are just that - evidence of your willingness to engage in fallacy - and add nothing useful to any form of discussion.

            Edit: found one while browsing! What are the odds! Post your gallop over there.

            • @Haagel
              link
              -26 months ago

              Removed by mod

              • @killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                The fact that you would present my opinion as something other than what I stated is evidence that you’re incapable of an honest conversation.

                Do you know what all accredited scientists have in common? That their outputs are available for anyone, even laymen to review, including all the evidence, experimentation and thought work that led them to their conclusions.

                But do you know what a layman can’t do? Peer review the work of accredited scientists. That’s the critical part of the process, because only an accredited scientist has the necessary body of knowledge to be able to meaningfully critique the work of his peers. That’s why we use the word peer.

                You and I can argue about evolution until we’re blue in the face and scientists will keep pushing the envelope regardless of that, producing new, exciting and important discoveries to the benefit of us all.

                I am an accredited scientist in my own field. I discuss it with other scientists every day. I teach laymen every day in the hope that they will achieve accreditation too one day.

                If this is your goal, I wish you all the best, but you won’t achieve it with the primitive thinking of your initial comment. As for layman debate about fields in which neither of us are accredited, I’m not interested given the lackluster quality of your arguments, but stick around long enough and maybe you’ll find someone else to roll around in the mud with.