An Appeal to Authority; in defense of Expertise.

1) First of all, you are forgetting the very real possibility that you are misunderstanding something that the "entire scientific and academic communities" (that is the experts in the field) understand.

2) I don't have the scientific background to argue with you about the dark matter issue. I have no trouble understanding when I don't have the mathematical or scientific understanding to address an issue.

3) Modern scientists... the ones studying cosmology right now... are pretty open about why they believe dark matter is real. You can can google it yourself, this article seems pretty good.. https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8. I don't see any mention of Oort in this article... the fact that some random guy first made the observation doesn't mean it isn't true. It is true if the theory is testable.

4) The process that modern scientists use to reach this conclusion is the very one that you mention in the other thread on this topic



They observed something. They made a test (predictions about what they should see if dark matter was real). The tests succeeded.

5) The issue here is that this "doesn't make sense to you" so you reject it. This is means that you will reject any science that you don't understand.

Modern science (after thousands of years of discovery and advancement) is complicated. There will be quite a bit you don't understand. Of course science doesn't really care, it goes on without you.

And admit it or not, you are using modern science right now to read this post. My post has gone over the internet through routers through semiconductors... these technologies are built with modern science.

Modern science doesn't care if you believe in it or not. It still works.

Just for full disclosure, in this battle for trust between you and modern science (i.e. the "entire scientific and academic communities"), I am choosing modern science.

However I should note that modern science gives me stuff. I have a semiconductor based phone that fits in my hand and has GPS. Modern science has also literally doubled my life expectancy (and in my case has already saved my life by curing a disease that would have been certain death 150 years ago).

So yes, I choose modern science... but maybe my choice is biased.

"They observed something. They made a test (predictions about what they should see if dark matter was real). The tests succeeded."

Bullsnot. Dark matter can not be seen or measured by definition. What they did was to calculate where they needed dark matter to be so they wouldn't have to admit their theory had been disproved. We call that "fudging the data".

That isn't true. Dark matter can be measured and has been measured. The reason it is accepted science is because there are several different ways you can measure dark matter, and they all come up with the same answer.

You need to do your homework. Dark matter can not be detected directly by definition. It is strictly a fudge factor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#History

You do not follow this in practice, not here at least.

I reference a previous exchange where you proclaimed superior knowledge (presumably because of you reasoning ability) of both evolutionary genetics and computer technology (my field) and now you confess ignorance. Where were your expert references?

My claim no expert knowledge of evolutionary biology. What I argue is baswd on what biologists write. The point is that I trust the scientific community and woukd be quick to defer to them if they tell me I am misunderstanding something.

I am a software engineer working in artificial intelligence, speech recognition. That is a field where I claim a fair amount of expertise.

There a big difference in how I approach these two fields. In biology I can repeat what thr scientists say, and I can make logical inferences... but I must admit that there is a real chance I am misunderatanding sometging. A debate between me and a real bioligist about biology isnt reasonable.

In computer science I have expert knowledge in a couple fields and a foothold in others. Once you understand the concept of something like O notation you have a core understanding.

Once you reach a certain level of mastery then you can participate in the discussion in a productive way. This takes time and work and no one can do this in more than a few subjects.

For me to criticize the findings of real biologists would be ridiculous. All I can do os try to understand them.

I absolutely agree with your first statement.
I assumed you knew enough biology to converse knowledgeably on the subject.

But it sounds like you are saying you only know what you think the current expert consensus is. My point is, why even enter a discussion of it if that is where you ultimately leave it.

Personally, my curiosity alone would not allow me to accept that a small land animal turned into a whale without any kind of help unless I personally understood the mechanism. I understand random mutation and natural selection. I find them wanting as a scientific explanation. So do many actual biologists.

In that case, your curiosity should drive you into getting a biology degree. In order for you to reach a level of understanding where you can have a productive discussion means that you need to learn math, do problem sets, do work in the lab.

Science by Google is a very poor substitute for education. Google allows you to form misconceptions. It is a search engine meaning that once you have a misunderstanding you can easily find material to strengthen it.

Education, particularly science education, is designed to force you to correct your mistakes. This is not a process you can do by just skimming over google links.

Can’t you just cut to the chase and tell me I don’t know ****? That is what you just assumed and said in too many words. If that is your best defense of authority, I get ya.

I assume that there are some areas in which you have real expertise. I have no problem saying that in most areas of knowledge, I don't know enough to argue with the experts.

I had an interesting conversation with one of the parents at my daughter's school over algebraic rings. He had a PhD in mathematics. I don't. He has done quite a bit of work with group theory in mathematics. I have a layperson's curiosity and some interest because of encryption.

I made a comment that I believed was correct. He told me that I was wrong. It was a great opportunity for me to learn... I asked him some questions about the correct answer. I wasn't asking the questions to debate with him, I was poking to find out where my own understanding was wrong. I learned something, but honestly I didn't have the abstract algebra chops to keep up with his explanation. If I really want to understand algebraic rings, I am going to have to do some serious work learning more mathematics.

My one misunderstanding has been corrected.

I didn't take it personally, there are other areas of knowledge where I have more expertise. In this area (in your words) I "didn't know ****". The fact that I accept this means I can learn from someone who does know what he is talking about.

Good to know.

Try that same approach here.

"If you don't understand Newton's laws you can't understand Einstein."

Ok, let's talk about Einstein. The theory says if one identical twin travels at high speed while the other twin does not, the one on the ship will be younger than his twin at the end of the trip. But if the observer is relative to the one on the ship, the other twin appears to move at high speed, so that one should be the younger one. So the theory of relativity is falsified.

Which is an example of an "Appeal to authority fallacy" itself. Just because a dentist makes some claims about his unerstanding of how evolutions "doesnt work" and you accept his claim. THEN you use it as a backstop for your argument is the very point max is discussing. Real expertise comes after "paying yer dues in training and involvement" within the actual craft, not reading some blogs written by folks whose own expetise is several floors removed from that department.

The attempt at an argument against the evidence for whale evolution is based upon a fairly naive group of religiously affiliated "physical scientists and engineers " whove shown no expertise at evaluating the fossil record and how the very argument regarding the evolution of cetaceans (using the concept of last common ancestry)was cobbled together after years of often fruitless field work and real discoveries since the 1980's and later.

The is a perfext example of the problem. It doesn't make sense to you because you don't understand the principle... and so you reject it.

You are making a symmetry argument which would make sense if the paths the two twins took were symmetrical. They aren't. You would see this clearly of you took the time to understand the mathematics. The problem is that you can't take a shortcut... science by Google is not a way to understand this topic.

By the way, the twin "paradox" has been confirmed experimentally several different ways. It happens.

One of the twins changes their inertial frame of reference (probably several times). The other remains in their original inertial frame of reference.

Here is an example of how completely different we view 'things'.

Let’s say you give me absolute incontrovertible proof that the small land living mammal turned into the sea dwelling animal we know as the whale, and that we both agree with this proof.

But,
Note that having reached this agreement, we then reach totally opposite conclusions!

Yours, based mainly on the fossil evidence it seems.

Mine is mainly based on the DNA systems requirements that random mutation and natural selection cannot account for in the timescale it took place in. Thus, if that dog sized mammal did actually evolve into a whale, it had to have had intelligent direction. That’s just what the math tells me.

I’m not saying that is what I believe. It is quite possible that all the incredible number of animals in all their variations and sizes over the millions of years have led you to the evolution theory, but it’s equally possible each was designed separately with certain traits shared for what reason we can only guess at.

For some reason, You see Crick's discovery of DNA as confirming Darwin.

I see exactly the opposite. When you truly grasp what DNA and all it implies is, Darwin's brilliant hypothesis looks foolish.

o you have som DNA from fosils wh?? boy you are really good. Cience has been orking on that for two ecades and the closest theyve gotten (after an agreed upon length of time for degredation).
PS "some guy you call Crick" didnt discover DNA. James Watson and "Francis" Crick DID discover what it crytak structure was, and in doing so became two of the most decorated plagiarists in biochemistry.

Ive asked you to read several books including one about origins of the cetaceans. You would just give a snide comment about how you werent interested in that, so now youve become the purveyor of DNA evidence from the Paleogene.

till, you arent the king of BSers about DNA. e had a guy herein with a name of IONUS who tried to BS me that he could know about T rex from its DNA. So hi BS beat yours by at least 15 million years.

The issue of last common ancestor concept orks on step at a time. If you were up on that concept, youd have seen that Ambulocetus (wlking whale) was the first of a whol group of fossils that had "whale like" features in their middle ear, teeth, and nares. These features were then seen in a derivative daughter genus called ambulocetus, which, by retining ambulocetus fetures and adsing some new ones including mpre pddle like legs and a longer frame and subdued hip began to show more whale like features.
YOU seem to make the jumps from Ambulocetus without considering all the later genera that had whale like features.

There may have been more than 10 genera that approched "whaleness" a step at a time.
All these genera were becoming adapted to the fluvial environment of the shallow seas along the Indian and Mid east subcontinents marine environments. All these animls , through time, had a big thing in common besides their increasing amounts of body structures. They all lived in a relatively small area of the S Asian
environment(mostly grassland and forest margins along a series of estuaries, then, later, the marine environment begins to develop as estuaries grew into bays, then to full on shallow marine areas with thousands of islands (like the present South Pacific .
When these " evolutionary relationships" based on changing geology and changing fossils become hypotheses and then theories with good bases of evidence, its never done as a YAHOO "lets make up some ****". It took many a yer and was mostly a result of the growing facts of sea floor spreading and Continental drift.

When you get your references about Paleocene Proto-whale DNA, please let me see it cause I will kneel before you as a suppliant to your secret knowledge.

I am curious though, what do you provide as an explanation for the existence of whales (Remember they didnt appear as deep water sppecies until the late Oligocene, while several species of cetacens (like Zueglodons or "Basilosaurians" )

That is, as you know, a very minority "belief" that is mostly evidence free because fossil animals cannot be "MINED" for ncient DNA.

We can find DNA from Mammoths or wooly rhinocerus because they hdnt fully been destroyed via time and acidification.
Finding a whale fossil or a living "pakicetus" like creature jut aint gonna happen. Elephants hve hira ces which are still a living species. Most other animals , including hominids and reptiles dont have the benefit of intermmediate DNA (we do hve living apes that contain most of our beginning DNA and we can see how mutation and selection DOES account for evolution .

We believe that most scientists use the scientific method, which is a valid method of drawing conclusions. Therefore, their conclusions are probably valid, or, at least, the best we can do now.