4 ms·

I brought him up as an example that there are certainly people out there that don't agree with macro evolution and can reason well beyond that of a "grade schoo

by walkon 17y ago

I brought him up as an example that there are certainly people out there that don't agree with macro evolution and can reason well beyond that of a "grade schooler." I was not trying to allege that he himself has done any research directly refuting origin evolution. Perhaps if origin evolution could come up with scientific theories that are falsifiable, we'd see more refuting research.

tokenadult 17y ago
I brought him up as an example that there are certainly people out there that don't agree with macro evolution and can reason well beyond that of a "grade schooler." Fair enough. And I brought up the evidence for macroevolution, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ in relation to the main point of the thread-opening submission, to show that college-educated persons with normal curiosity, reading ability, and access to the Internet should be well convinced that macroevolution is a fact, in the same way that nuclear fission is a fact. Perhaps the problem of someone who doubts macroevolution (as, in fact, I was once taught to do) is not a problem of reasoning ability at all, in agreement with you. (I thought my reasoning ability was just fine, and some forms of school testing including the GRE suggested that it was, before I became convinced by the evidence for macroevolution. But I had a crucial lack of curiosity when I wasn't looking up the evidence http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ to use my reasoning ability to evaluate that evidence.) Now I'm curious about the puzzling pattern of upvotes and downvotes here. I think the concern about science education expressed in the thread-opening submission would be a general concern of HN participants, and I would think that a comment that posts a link to a source of reliable scientific conclusions in such a thread would not be considered a detriment to the quality of discussion on HN. Perhaps if origin evolution could come up with scientific theories that are falsifiable, we'd see more refuting research. Demonstrating my curiosity in what I hope is a friendly way, what kind of theories do you have in mind? What would be a way to falsify a theory (from any point of view) about origin of species?

by walkon 17y ago

tokenadult 17y ago

I brought him up as an example that there are certainly people out there that don't agree with macro evolution and can reason well beyond that of a "grade schooler." Fair enough. And I brought up the evidence for macroevolution, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ in relation to the main point of the thread-opening submission, to show that college-educated persons with normal curiosity, reading ability, and access to the Internet should be well convinced that macroevolution is a fact, in the same way that nuclear fission is a fact. Perhaps the problem of someone who doubts macroevolution (as, in fact, I was once taught to do) is not a problem of reasoning ability at all, in agreement with you. (I thought my reasoning ability was just fine, and some forms of school testing including the GRE suggested that it was, before I became convinced by the evidence for macroevolution. But I had a crucial lack of curiosity when I wasn't looking up the evidence http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ to use my reasoning ability to evaluate that evidence.) Now I'm curious about the puzzling pattern of upvotes and downvotes here. I think the concern about science education expressed in the thread-opening submission would be a general concern of HN participants, and I would think that a comment that posts a link to a source of reliable scientific conclusions in such a thread would not be considered a detriment to the quality of discussion on HN. Perhaps if origin evolution could come up with scientific theories that are falsifiable, we'd see more refuting research. Demonstrating my curiosity in what I hope is a friendly way, what kind of theories do you have in mind? What would be a way to falsify a theory (from any point of view) about origin of species?