Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How was it bs, Lactose intolerants is a pre exsiting trait it was not added by mutations, it's called "Genetic varations"Like I said no proof give me:
1.An experiment that prove mutations add traits to the gene pool
2. And the scientist name.
And sorry about the triple post.
You can't actually experiment on that, because the scientist would be introducing the new genetic information and you'd ***** about that too.
And scientists grew a human ear on the back of a lab rat.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
No, he's right. You don't take the easiest answer, whether it's right or not. You take the correct answer and simplify it.EDIT: excuse the double post, it was an accident.
That's not true, and that might just be the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Just how do you assume to find the "correct" answer in the first place. I advise you to read up on it.
Occam's Razor is looking for an explanation in the first place, and it takes the one with the least assumptions (=the easiest ones) and assumes it to be true. But just because it is easy and looks quite reasonable in the first place doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not true, and that might just be the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Just how do you assume to find the "correct" answer in the first place. I advise you to read up on it.Occam's Razor is looking for an explanation in the first place, and it takes the one with the least assumptions (=the easiest ones) and assumes it to be true. But just because it is easy and looks quite reasonable in the first place doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
What a great philosophy.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not true, and that might just be the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Just how do you assume to find the "correct" answer in the first place. I advise you to read up on it.Occam's Razor is looking for an explanation in the first place, and it takes the one with the least assumptions (=the easiest ones) and assumes it to be true. But just because it is easy and looks quite reasonable in the first place doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
Occam's Razor is literally: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."
Or, in other words:
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
don't take the easiest answer, whether it's right or not. You take the correct answer and simplify it.
If one answer is simple, yet wrong, then it's NECESSARY to complicate it until it's the correct answer, but do not complicate it any more than that. And that therefore becomes the simplest correct answer, or in other words, the entity that does not need to be multiplied UNCESSECARILY.
Hmm, what seems so stupid now?
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Occam's Razor is literally: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."Or, in other words:
If one answer is simple, yet wrong, then it's NECESSARY to complicate it until it's the correct answer, but do not complicate it any more than that. And that therefore becomes the simplest correct answer, or in other words, the entity that does not need to be multiplied UNCESSECARILY.
Hmm, what seems so stupid now?
Okay you just misunderstood what I am saying, oh and you still have a mistake in there. It is the simpelest working answer...not necessarily the correct one...that is the problem....the real world is not that simple.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay you just misunderstood what I am saying, oh and you still have a mistake in there. It is the simpelest working answer...not necessarily the correct one...that is the problem....the real world is not that simple.
There can only be one correct answer, but many favorable answers.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
You can't actually experiment on that, because the scientist would be introducing the new genetic information and you'd ***** about that too.And scientists grew a human ear on the back of a lab rat.
Arachnoid chill out, My point is that it has never been observed nor has an experiment yield that mutations add new genes, (and an experiment is possible you don't need to add genes to mutate an organisms by the way) so if there's no "PROOF" then it's only speculation. this is the biggest downfall for this theory and this is what will keep it theory.
My bad for the double post.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not true, and that might just be the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Just how do you assume to find the "correct" answer in the first place. I advise you to read up on it.Occam's Razor is looking for an explanation in the first place, and it takes the one with the least assumptions (=the easiest ones) and assumes it to be true. But just because it is easy and looks quite reasonable in the first place doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
Thats what we were taught, but that was a while ago.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
What is the difference between the working answer and the correct one? there isnt
That the workable answer might not be the full answer...nor the true one.....you have no clue what you are talking about...Occam's Razor is a decent Theory , but it's not even used today anymore. I see why you like it to be an universally accepted (certainly helps your evolution agenda) but well, it isn't.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That the workable answer might not be the full answer...nor the true one.....you have no clue what you are talking about...Occam's Razor is a decent Theory , but it's not even used today anymore. I see why you like it to be an universally accepted (certainly helps your evolution agenda) but well, it isn't.
"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."
1. If the answer is wrong, then it's necessary to find the right one. Dispute that and you're a fool.
2. Don't complicate the answer further than it has to be.
You just don't get it. And you never will because you don't want to concede to my point.
Basically exactly what you're doing right now is complicating things just to complicate them. You're the one who has no clue what you're talking about.
Give me a reason to overcomplicate the simplest correct answer.
And if I had an agenda, I wouldn't be wasting my time on a forum.