1) As I just pointed out, regardless if you want to define them as "mutated" or "damaged" the same issues exist with your argument: that it's not supported by your actual citations.
...2) the sources you cited specifically mention 'mutated" sperm
from the NYT article "The new research, much of it in early stages, suggests that certain substances can cause genetic mutations or other alterations in sperm that lead to permanent defects in children."
Tautology is so annoying. I deliberatly didn't say "mutation" because I didn't want to get into an arguement about genetics and because that isn't what this topic is about. And now you're confusing "supported" with "conclusive" as if they meant the same...they don't. For example, the theory of gravity isn't "conclusive" but it is "supported" by hundreds of years of observable evidence. Toxins causing damaged sperm and birth defects isn't conclusive either but the theory IS supported by the observable evidence.
Yes, I am very familier with the phrase. Which is why I made no claim about this being impossible.
Instead, you were claiming the theory is invalid because it's not conclusive. Evidence of absense is not absence of evidence.
What I did, correctly, was point out your sources do not support your claim that this *IS* happening. What they indicate is that this *MAY* be happening, and that research is currently investigating that *HYPOTHESIS*
If you're so smart then why don't you understand the difference between "supportive" and "conclusive" and a scientific theory and a hypothesis? Also, since I don't recall saying "IS" happening, why don't you show me exactly where I said it.
Hypotheses non fingo.
The topic we're discussing is not a hypothesis, its a scientific theory that's supported by observable evidence. No scientific theory *IS* conclusive, so thats why I don't believe I said it "IS" happening.
FYI....
"A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn’t mean the theory is correct; only that
current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it....."
What is the Difference between a Theory and a Hypothesis?
See the bolded above? Theory has to be falsifiable or it's not scientific. So how can I find you conclusive scientific evidence if science has to be falsifiable? And I'm not aware of any other theories that have falsified or disproven the theory that some toxins can cause damaged sperm or that those damaged sperm can cause birth defects. But you are more than welcome to try and find one if you're so inclined.
Yes you have. You have continually asserted that it was based on changes to the sperm and it's effect on the developing fetus
Since I don't know what the underlying mechanisms are how could I continually assert they're based on changes to the sperm and developing fetuses?
mutated sperm=damaged sperm.
However,
damaged sperm =/=mutated sperm.
Regardless of what label you want to toss in there the arguments still stand.
For better clarity and communication it helps to assign their proper meanings to words like "theory", "supportive", "may", "might", mutations, damaged, etc. in a scientific context. In particular "theory" is not an insult (as in the silly saying "it's just a theory"). A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge
not yet disproved by experiment or observation. In experimental sciences,
a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment and/or observation. This is precisely what makes a theory scientific.
Science is just a succession of better and better approximations. If you were to insist at all times on "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" or "conclusive evidence" in a scientific context, you'd never be able to make any meaningful statement unless quantified by a margin of error.
What you are citing is not indicating "toxins can cause damaged sperm which can cause birth defects". It indicates there is a correlation between the type of work the father is involved in and particular corresponding birth defects. What the underlying causes for this are, and what series of mechanisms they operate through, isn't known though.
Yes there is correlation but the correlation is supported with statistics, experiments, research and observations aka evidence of the underlying theory. My claim btw is a theory or arguement and perhaps it would be better if you called it that. Claim sounds so...so conclusive.
you are making claims beyond that correlation and asserting that the cause and underlying mechanism is known: "damaged sperm". When it could just as well be something like cross contamination through clothing or skin residue.
But I don't think I am making "claims" beyond that correlation. You keep saying I am, but I'm not seeing it. Yes there could be other factors as you mentioned, but I've tried to keep my arguement limited to alcohol, drugs and tobacco for the sake of this discussion. So when you start getting into toxins and hazards in the workplace of course its going to get more complicated and more confusing especially if you don't use the right words in the right context.
