|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 8:15:43 AM | Well until someone comes back from the Afterlife and tells us "what's up" then I'll just concentrate on the here and now. I'd hate to waste my short lifespan worrying about something that may or may not happen after I die.
Religious rules were created my human religious leaders that simply felt uncomfortable with certain things and made a rule about not doing it (as though talking to his kids).
If we weren't meant to do certain things, then we wouldn't have the ability to do them.
If there were "wrong ways" to worship, then we'd have heard about it by now. Buddhists or Christians , or whatever would have been told "Look you guys got it all wrong, lets start over here..." But that hasn't happened. Just enjoy life. Spend time with your kids and spouses and enjoy what time you have.
We're just a member of the animal kingdon, unfortunatly one that overthinks things too much, like religion. I'd rather stick to less complicated worries like which flavor of coffee creamer should I use today?  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 8:21:20 AM |
Well until someone comes back from the Afterlife and tells us "what's up" then I'll just concentrate on the here and now. I'd hate to waste my short lifespan worrying about something that may or may not happen after I die.
Here is a bunch that came back.
http://www.near-death.com/
Not sure what it has to do with Creation/Evolution though. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 8:32:12 AM | No one in this entire thread has said anything to even remotely indicate they worship Charles Darwin
I would just like to say that I remotely worship Darwin!  (He was a great man, y'al shoud read bout the increadible life he lead.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
it would appear that Darwin wasn't familiar enough with his own work to actually debate it in public.
This is because Darwin was a quiet and shy man, who had little stomache for arguments. He was not very good at debating as he was not a very confidant man.
Darwin was religious and continued to be so throuout his life, he only stoped beliving in the biblical god, not in god in the whole. As he traveled the world and found new life and new civilizations, he slowly lost his faith in the bible, the faith he had inherited from those around him (his father pushed him to become a cleric when he droped out of medical school).
It was his poor self image and his fear of "Reprisals" from the religious casts that caused him to sit on the theory he had been pondering for nearly 20 years before finaly publishing it. He maintened his friendships with the religious comunity even up until his death. He did not recant his theory on his death bed, but niether did he recant his belife that there was a god, it was only the bible that he had lost faith in.
In Fact he even maried a woman of no small faith. Emma Wedgwood and laterly Ema Darwin, beseached him not to publish his theories even reading from the Gospel of St John to him. Which is why he took so long to do so, not for his own sake but for his wifes.
Darwin was one of the greatest men of his time, he abhored violence and spoke out against racism and slavery, he campaigned for women's suffrage and land nationalization.
He studied all of the sciences and all of the humanities at two of the greatest educational instutuions of history, making lifelong friends with not only his teachers, and the heads of departments, but the deans as well.
He was an acomplished sailor, and medic, as well as an excelent artist (with a batchelorate degree) and beutiful poet.
The man traveled the most severe seas of the world, explored more new land than David Livingstone (quite a feat I asure you!) and never complained about the problems life threw at him.
He was a caring husband, a loving son and MOST importantly, he was a devoted father to TEN children.
Charles Darwin was a great man, a pius man, a man of peace and reason and love. He did things in his lifetime that any of us could only dream off doing in ours, yet today people besmearch him, without even knowing him.
I beg you please, if you don't like his theories then fine, go ahead and derile them all you wan't, but please do not insult the man who came up with them.
Sory, got a bit caried away with that. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 8:49:58 AM | "Woah, brother. I agree with you, Wonka, but dude, check your coolness, man."
Sorry, Feral, but the kid's gloves are off. I am tired of people ranting and raving about something they scarcely even understand. Just in case you missed the analogy from one of my earlier posts, I shall repeat it-
If a structural engineer were critiqued by someone with no knowledge of structural engineering he would rightly tell the person to go educate himself on the subject and return with valid critique. If he were to take the advice of someone who knew nothing of engineering his building would likely fall on someones head.
All your appeals for cordiality aside, I am repeating another point- I AM TIRED OF THE SOHPISTRY. I have no issue with valid critique of a theory, but straw man arguments and other logical fallacies and irrational arguments I won't respond nicely to. You seem to think that if we are all huggy kissy with each other that these people will suddenly present rational and substantive arguments. It's not going to happen. Arguing from ignorance is pointless and unproductive. If they can't be bothered to properly educate themselves on the topic, then why should I or anyone entertain their inane ramblings? Let me provide another analogy for you to drive this very important point home. If you wrote a novel and handed it to a publisher for his perusal, and the publisher then threw it in the trash without reading a word, saying "that's trash," what would your reaction be? I offer the following challenge to anyone who wants to critique the theory with any degree of legitimacy, because this is how science works- if you don't like the theory then present an alternate SCIENTIFIC theory with greater explanatory prowess, predictive capability and coherence with empirical data and science in general. Or, at the very least, help to refine the existing theory by offering VALID, INFORMED critique. Otherwise, you are engaging in empty sophistry. Was that not nice enough for your tender sensibilities, Feral? That's not directed at you, as your comments are always cogent, but it is directed at your misguided appeal for cordiality.
"Huxley's strong anti-religious sentiments were what drove him to defend Darwin's theory to the degree that he did. Sir Charles Lyell, was likely the person most responsible for Darwin actually publishing his work. He was a strong supporter of uniformitarianism and saw Darwin's theory as a good complement to his own works and would go far in refuting creation and the flood which he didn't believe in."
A quick Google search hardly provides you with a meaningful understanding of a theory and the history from which it emerged. First of all your paranoid assumptions of some conspiracy against religion are blatantly wrong. These men were trying to understand the natural world and nothing more. Hutton, who influenced Lyell was a devout Christian. Lyell himself believed in God, and he devoted much energy to trying to reconcile natural philosophy with the biblical flood account, not refute it. He was disturbed by the secular implications he imagined from Lamark's theory. Just because they didn't interpret their religion your way, doesn't make them hostile to religion in general. And just for the record, strict uniformitarianism has been roundly rejected in geology and biology, so, by modern standards, it's moot. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 9:18:36 AM | Although I don't like the idea of bursting the bubble or speaking ill of the dead, I think it is also important that truth is revealed when it has a bearing on what people believe.
His fear of "reprisals" may have more to do with with charges of plagiarism and intellectual fraud from the scientific community than from the religious sector. Many of the ideas he outlined in the Origin of the Species had actually been around since 1835-1837 from a man named Edward Blyth. Darwin gave almost no credit to Blyth's work in spite of using his writings almost wod for word except to change Blyth's creationist outlook to a materialistic one. It has been charged that Darwin was simply a collector and recorder of other men's ideas.
His long-term illness which was used as an excuse for not publicly debating his theories was more consistent with a psychsomatic disorder than with being bitten with a disease carrying bug. After Blyth's death he recovered from his supposed disease quite remarkably. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 10:01:09 AM | wonkavision
I AM TIRED OF THE $50 SOHPISTRY $50 For Plato's dialogue titled Sophist, see Sophist (dialogue)
Sophism was originally a term for the techniques taught by a highly respected group of philosophy and rhetoric teachers in ancient Greece. The derogatory modern usage of the word, suggesting an invalid argument composed of specious reasoning, is not necessarily representative of the beliefs of the original Sophists, except that they generally taught Rhetoric. The Sophists are known today only through the writings of their opponents (specifically Plato and Aristotle), which makes it difficult to formulate a complete view of the Sophists' beliefs.
Modern Usage from this point $100 sohpidtry $100
In traditional logical argument, a set of premises are connected together according to the rules of logic and lead therefore to some conclusion. When someone criticizes the argument, they do so by pointing out either falsehoods among the premises or logical fallacies, flaws in the logical scaffolding. These criticisms may be subject to counter-criticisms, which in turn may be subject to counter-counter-criticisms, etc. Generally, some judge or audience eventually either concurs with or rejects the position of one side and thus a consensus opinion of the truth is arrived at.
The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is irrelevant (if not non-existent); it is only the ruling of the audience which ultimately determine whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true.
The philosophical Sophist goes one step beyond that and claims that since it was traditionally accepted that the position ruled valid by the judges was literally true, any position ruled true by the judges must be considered literally true, even if it was arrived at by naked pandering to the judges' prejudices — or even by bribery.
Critics would argue that this claim relies on a straw man caricature of logical discourse and is, in fact, a self-justifying act of $100 sophistry. $100
Origins
The meaning of the word $150 sophist $150 (gr. sophis meaning "wise-ist," or one who 'does' wisdom; cf. sophós, "wise man", cf. also wizard) has changed greatly over time. Initially, a sophist was someone who gave sophia to his disciples, i.e., wisdom made from knowledge. It was a highly complimentary term, applied to early philosophers such as the Seven Wise Men of Greece.
In the second half of the 5th century B.C., and especially at Athens, "sophist" came to be applied to a group of thinkers who employed debate and rhetoric to teach and disseminate their ideas and offered to teach these skills to others. Due to the importance of such skills in the litigious social life of Athens, practitioners of such skills often commanded very high fees. The practice of taking fees, coupled with the willingness of many practitioners to use their rhetorical skills to pursue unjust lawsuits, eventually led to a decline in respect for practitioners of this form of teaching and the ideas and writings associated with it.
Protagoras is generally regarded as the first sophist. Other leading 5th-century sophists included Gorgias and Prodicus. Socrates was perhaps the first philosopher to significantly challenge the Sophists.
Plato is significantly responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as someone who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all challenged the philosophical foundations of sophism.
Eventually, the school was accused of immorality by the state.
The Sophists held a relativistic view on cognition and knowledge. Their philosophy contains criticism of religion, law and ethics. Though many sophists were as religious as their contemporaries, some held atheistic or agnostic views.
Unfortunately most of the original texts written by the sophists have been lost, and modern understanding of sophistic movement comes from analysis of Plato's writings. It is necessary to keep in mind that Plato and the sophists had severe ideological differences, and Plato might have benefited from modifying or slanting the original sophistic arguments when he presented them in his writings (ironically, a sophistic technique at work), or may even not have fully understood their arguments himself. An excellent book on the topic is "The Sophistic Movement" by G. B. Kerferd ISBN 0521283574.
Due to Plato's dominance of western philosophy ("The safest generalization that can be made about the history of western philosophy is that it is all a series of footnotes to Plato." Whitehead) his characterizations of the Sophists have become the meaning of Sophistry. Sophistry is a derogatory term for rhetoric that is designed to appeal to the listener on grounds other than the strict logical validity of the statements being made.
In the Roman Empire, sophists were just professors of rhetoric. For instance, Libanius, Himerius, Aelius Aristides and Fronto were considered sophists in this sense.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 11:21:57 AM | Charlie- first off, please cite your sources. I've reprimanded you for this before. Clearly that post is not your words, and yet you don't cite whose they are. That is very sloppy composition, and any professor would give you a failing grade for doing so. Although it may not be your intention, it comes across as plagiarism. That being said, I am well aware of the origin of the term; trust me you need not educate me on philosophy. I am well educated on the subject. The etymology of the term in this circumstance is irrelevant; I am using it in it's modern sense. I could easily peruse the dictionary and cite a plethora of terms that have diverged in common parlance from their origin. That being said, did you understand the words that you so hastily chose to paste? I ask, because you essentially make my point with them. Was that your intention? Are you saying that you are in accord with me? In fact, this part of your un-cited material bears repetition:
The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is irrelevant (if not non-existent); it is only the ruling of the audience which ultimately determine whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true.
The philosophical Sophist goes one step beyond that and claims that since it was traditionally accepted that the position ruled valid by the judges was literally true, any position ruled true by the judges must be considered literally true, even if it was arrived at by naked pandering to the judges' prejudices — or even by bribery.
Note how I ensconced the quote in a quote box indicating that they are not my words, and are from a source outside the forum. The author should also be cited, but, since you failed to do so, I am unable to provide that very crucial information. I appeal to you to do so. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 11:31:14 AM |
it would appear that Darwin wasn't familiar enough with his own work to actually debate it in public.
This is because Darwin was a quiet and shy man, who had little stomache for arguments. He was not very good at debating as he was not a very confidant man.
Nah, its because his ghost mumbles. People tell him to speak up and he gives them the finger and then fades through a door. Frustrating. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 11:34:51 AM |
His fear of "reprisals" may have more to do with with charges of plagiarism and intellectual fraud from the scientific community than from the religious sector. Many of the ideas he outlined in the Origin of the Species had actually been around since 1835-1837 from a man named Edward Blyth. Darwin gave almost no credit to Blyth's work in spite of using his writings almost wod for word except to change Blyth's creationist outlook to a materialistic one. It has been charged that Darwin was simply a collector and recorder of other men's ideas.
Have you read Darwin? Darwin covered *huge* areas of biology, beyond his evolutionary theories. His work on Cirripedia alone took a decade or so. Orchids, worms, so many areas. Anyone who charges Darwin with being 'simply a collector and recorder of other men's ideas' can only have no idea of the breadth of his work.
I looked up Blyth and the comment on his work on Wikipedia is this:
Blyth's influence on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has been a matter of speculation and debate. Blyth published a series of articles in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837 (for example, see reference[1], below). It is not clear that Blyth's views on biological changes in species could have significantly advanced the idea of a fundamental role for natural selection in the origin of new species. Blyth wrote things like, "The original form of a species is unquestionably better adapted to its natural habits than any modification of that form." From this and other statements by Blyth, it seems clear that he imagined that modifications of existing species by natural processes could only result in degeneration from a more perfect original form. Darwin had to actively escape from Blyth's kind of thinking about species in order to be able to propose that natural selection could lead to new species that are well adapted to changing environments.
I'm assuming you have read Blyth? His writing, both in content and style, is quite far from Darwin's - there's a link to one of Blyth's articles on Wikipedia. Go read it, then see if you still claim Darwin copied him.
Back to your post:
His long-term illness which was used as an excuse for not publicly debating his theories was more consistent with a psychsomatic disorder than with being bitten with a disease carrying bug. After Blyth's death he recovered from his supposed disease quite remarkably.
Darwin was chronically sick his entire later life, *well* past Blyth's death.
I don't know what source you took your 'claims' about Darwin from, but I'd suggest throwing it out with the rest of the garbage if that's as accurate as it gets.
And to the people who keep somehow impugning Darwin's motives for his theories - so what? He was right. Didn't Kepler want to prove that planetary orbits were related to Platonic solids when he invented his laws of planetary motion? Does this somehow mean planets don't move in ellipses? Nope. Shockley was a racist - transistors still work.
Evolutionary theory is *hard*. Even most biologists don't really understand it too well - just like most chemists don't really understand thermodynamics.
But using clearly error-laden sources to attack Darwin is no way to go about things.
--D. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 12:05:57 PM |
Here is a bunch that came back.
http://www.near-death.com/
Nah, that's a bunch that say they had afterlife experiences and then came back. Big distinction. I especially liked the section in there devoted to the Near Death Experiences of pets. Very informative...
Many people say they've seen bigfoot (not the one the Lakers traded to the Miami Heat in '04). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 12:23:04 PM | When the guy that first discovered Bigfoot died a couple years ago, he admitted on his death bed that he made the whole thing up and was too scared to admit it due to the unexpected international popularity and media infusion it suddenly got.
He said that famous picture of the blurry Bigfoot walking past was in fact himself in a costume and his buddy took the picture. What did he care at that point? He died a few hours later.
So yes, folks, Bigfoot is a hoax. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 12:26:20 PM |
Sorry, Feral, but the kid's gloves are off. I am tired of people ranting and raving about something they scarcely even understand.
I don't want to take this too far out of the mainline (I'm the one wants to get back to q/a about the different veiwpoints, after all), but these ought to be addressed. Here's the deal: Like I said, I agree with you about the "ranting and raving" people, but (and here's the point) they have that right. They can piss and moan all they want, but they go off on a tangent and start whining because someone called them on being ignorant, that just drags everything into a little whiner's slap-fight. I'm saying be bigger than that. Observe:
You seem to think that if we are all huggy kissy with each other that these people will suddenly present rational and substantive arguments.
I didn't say that, and I don't appreciate the implication. If you interpreted it that way, please ask for clarification; I can provide it. 'Nuff said. Let's move on. (Notice I didn't continue with the other "Feral's saying" quote I wanted to refute. It's just not important.)
My point is simple, and it's for all, myself included. "Cordiality" may seem a waste of time, but so is the bickering "I said/he said/she said" flag-waving. Assertions are made without proof; require it. Opinions are propounded; recognise them as such. People take offense; that's their right and their issue to resolve. If they ask help, I have no problem helping.
Again, I'd rather return to the topic, so...
-What evidences does evolution explain, and how compelling or conclusive are these proofs?
-What specific developments has evolution predicted to its credit?
-What valid arguments do folks have that evolution is not scientific?
-How is it demonstrable, if at all, that belief in evolution is a faith-based position?
-What logical or empirical proof can be provided to show evidence for a creator?
-What is the scientific hypothesis or theory that postulates this creator?
-How can the existence of a creator be tested and verified or falsified?
-What predictive power does the theory that there is a creator have?
This is getting longer than I intended, but I did wish to address my own query of earlier regarding the apparent tautology in the concept of natural selection. It appears to me that the actual tautology that most folks tend to catch is when the concept is reworded as "survival of the fittest," and Wonka made a good show of pointing out that the "upward progression" that some people tend to envisage is illusory, that "fitness" is less a sticking point than many would like to make it. For my part, I would also like to add that, in my understanding of the theory, there is a subtle distinction between the "fitness for survival" of the individual (as measured by the fact that the individual did indeed survive to breed) and that of the heritable variation carried by that individual (in that it carries on after the eventual demise of its supposed originator). While the individual could just be a lucky son of a parent, the "fitness" would most likely be in regard to the trait that carries on, eventually infusing the population to a great degree, changing the overall genome of the community.
One other thing, since I'm thinking of it. I honestly don't remember the author's name, but I was reading an article by the scientist that was big on early whales leaving the land to return to water. If anyone can remember his name (or if I do) I'll try to supply the link I was reading. Anyway, he was going into the theory of catastrophism and its effects on punctuated equilibrium, when it occured to me to wonder something. Is it possible, empirically testable, etc. that, while evolution may act on individual species, the "advanced version" in the macroevolutionary sense tends to happen on an ecological level, all (or a significant portion) of the flora and fauna in an area "bouncing back" from a catastrophe by sort of "shuffling themselves" until stability returns? Okay, not well worded, so if you guys need clarity, please let me know. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 12:27:28 PM | Tsur- Well done on Blyth. I was not as familiar with his connection to Darwin in the theoretical lineage, so I reserved comment. The fallacy in their reasoning in these irrelevant and misinformed arguments is in not understanding the historical nature of scientific (and incidentally philosophical) theory. They are seeing theories as all being autonomous entities, without realizing the complex historical lineage in the progression of knowledge. No theory is isolated from history, or the cultural ethos or scientific paradigms of it's time. Of course similarities exist, but profound differences in logical approach and methodology also exist. Darwin did not live under a rock. If he had, he would have never possessed the intellectual capacity to propose such an elegant and complex theory. Same goes for Einstein. In 20/20 hindsight, the Theory of Relativity seems almost obvious, and it is clear, had he not proposed it, within a decade, or two at the most, someone else would have.
"And to the people who keep somehow impugning Darwin's motives for his theories - so what? He was right. Didn't Kepler want to prove that planetary orbits were related to Platonic solids when he invented his laws of planetary motion? Does this somehow mean planets don't move in ellipses? Nope. Shockley was a racist - transistors still work."
Yes, this is an ad hominem variety logical fallacy, and it has been pointed out to them numerous times. Apparently simple logic is an issue with them.
"Evolutionary theory is *hard*. Even most biologists don't really understand it too well - just like most chemists don't really understand thermodynamics."
Or quantum physics. We are speaking of very complex theories that one can not evaluate by sound byte familiarity with.
Lizard-
"I especially liked the section in there devoted to the Near Death Experiences of pets."
LOL. Yes very informative.
Edit: Feral- I just saw your post and I'll read it and respond in due time, but I don't want to double post. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 12:30:29 PM | Oh yay, more Creationist quote-mining! Didn't these crop up 100 pages ago or so?
I see someone else picked the list apart.
Of the 13 quotes, four are completely unrelated to evolution (Anfinsen, Neel, Penzias, Garnham).
Berlinski (note spelling) and Denton are well-known fringe anti-evolutionist writers. No Nobel prizes here, though.
Isaac Manly is so obscure I had trouble finding anything about him. He's some MD from Harvard who is a Creationist. Some crank.
'Lemoine' and 'Bounoure' are classic Creationist quote-mining. Paul Lemoine was indeed a famous French scientist. 'Bounoure' on the other hand, wasn't. He didn't even write the words you claim he did, nor was he Director of the CNRS.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html
Ken Hsu (missing an umlaut on the 'u') isn't anti-evolution. See misquote #4.6 on the following page for an extended discussion how Creationist distort his words.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html
Lovtrup, I'd never heard of. I looked up his book on 'Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth' on Amazon, and the lead reviewer of his book posted the following
Lovtrup is not anti-evolutionist, and Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents will get no succor from reading this book. The book is excellent as a critique of evolutionary theory generated from within modern biology. His history is well documented and I think worth the time of anyone serious about understanding modern evolutionary thought. I am hopeful that one day, the evo/devo wars and complexity theory can finally trump naive micromutationism. This book isn't so helpful on that score, but it predates both movements.
Wilder-Smith is indeed well-known. He's a well-known Creationist. So he ought to know something about superstition and credulousness.
So of the 13 quotes, 4 are meaningless*, 5 are by known minor scientists who are Creationists, and 4 are misquotes of people who actually support evolution.
* it turns out the Penzias quote is also a misquote. Not double-counted.
Could Creationists who plan on doing cut-and-paste quote mining *please* do SIMPLE checking of their quotes, PLEASE? How many times do I have to suggest it????
I mean, quoting Berlinski as anti-evolution is about as earth-shaking as quoting George W. Bush on particle physics.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 12:30:30 PM | When the guy that first discovered Bigfoot died a couple years ago, he admitted on his death bed that he made the whole thing up and was too scared to admit it due to the unexpected international popularity and media infusion it suddenly got.
Actually, in all honesty there have been bigfoot sightings from long before Wallace and his shenanigans. Its still nothing more than a mythical animal, but people have been saying they've seen bigfoot since the 1800's. So give the other hoaxers their due credit. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 12:46:12 PM | "Is it possible, empirically testable, etc. that, while evolution may act on individual species, the "advanced version" in the macroevolutionary sense tends to happen on an ecological level, all (or a significant portion) of the flora and fauna in an area "bouncing back" from a catastrophe by sort of "shuffling themselves" until stability returns?"
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but it sounds like you are describing punctuated equilibrium and hierarchical evolution. The percentage of flora and fauna that are rendered extinct, I would think to be significant though, but the "bouncing back" occurs from the altered relationships, both biotic and abiotic that follow from such a mass extinction event. I'm not sure about this, and Dryad, Bright or Tsur may have a better idea, but I believe such an event would favour a higher relative frequency of cladogentic speciation, as anagentic gradualism would tend to occur in species with temporally and geographically restricted parameters.
"in my understanding of the theory, there is a subtle distinction between the "fitness for survival" of the individual (as measured by the fact that the individual did indeed survive to breed) and that of the heritable variation carried by that individual (in that it carries on after the eventual demise of its supposed originator). While the individual could just be a lucky son of a parent, the "fitness" would most likely be in regard to the trait that carries on, eventually infusing the population to a great degree, changing the overall genome of the community."
Yeah, I'd say that's pretty accurate. It's a complex issue regarding the relative frequency of various causal factors and levels of causation. What generates a trait to progeny is often the result of causal loci operating at different levels in a synergistic feedback relationship. Those forces can be in opposition acting somewhat as a restriction, or they can operate cohesively adding to the likelihood of the traits manifestation, or they can simply act orthoganally. Also, I would add that some traits are of a spandrel nature and can serve a later adaptive purpose that it initially did not.
As for your list of questions, let's approach that one at a time in successive posts, because it's far too involved.
Lastly, it was not my intention to put words in your mouth on that one issue. I have great respect for you, and I enjoy the substantive level of your posts. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 12:49:25 PM | Majestic:
lol really? I never knew that. I read the article once online and left it at that. That's interesting.
Yeah I know the Yeti and Loch Ness are oldies, too. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 1:07:21 PM | "What evidences does evolution explain, and how compelling or conclusive are these proofs?"
Feral, Bright and Dryad are the king and queen of citing specific experimental and paleontological evidence, so I'll leave this to them. If you are really interested, and trust me there is a wealth of evidence, I highly recommend Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Mind you it's tantamount to taking a college course. It's 1400 pages small print and is rife with obscure professional jargon. It's not unusual for me to plow through 200-400 pages a day with a book, but this one took me about three weeks. You can't skim it; you've got to chew it. And also bear in mind that, although he does provide specific cases of evidence, even more are references to other material, so it's involved.
"What specific developments has evolution predicted to its credit?"
Again, this is vast, and gets more and more detailed and specialized as you move into modern theory, but there are many points of nexus between what various postulations within the theory predict and paleontological, genetic, statistic, neantological genetic analysis, biospecies study, etc., empirical evidence.
"What valid arguments do folks have that evolution is not scientific?"
None. This has been addressed ad nauseum in this thread.
"How is it demonstrable, if at all, that belief in evolution is a faith-based position?"
same as above.
"What logical or empirical proof can be provided to show evidence for a creator?"
There is none, which is why it's an issue for faith and not science. Really, this is irrelvant to the topic though.
"What predictive power does the theory that there is a creator have?"
same as above.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 4:56:28 PM |
They are seeing theories as all being autonomous entities, without realizing the complex historical lineage in the progression of knowledge.
Sorry, but this just conjured in my mind the image of a bunch of bearded guys with glasses in lab coats sitting around and trying to come up with progressively less coherent ideas to "test." 
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but it sounds like you are describing punctuated equilibrium and hierarchical evolution.
I was concerned that it wouldn't quite come across as well as I'd hoped. Yes, it is a thought derived from those concepts, but the thought that I had was along the lines that, in the event of a major extinction event or a catastrophe that significantly alters the environment, the pressures to find, expand, or even hold onto a given niche would cause nearly all the biota in an ecology to develop, at their given rates of generation, thus altering not just one species of many, but all or most species in the environment. I guess I'm looking at it through the mindset that, should one key component of an ecology radically change, the rest of the ecology might be expected to follow suit. So, basically, when there's a shake-up, and an environment loses, say, its apex predators, some other predator might "advance" to fill the gap (possibly leading to speciation from its original type), or some new development or developments in the environment or the biota found there might take on the role that an apex predator would fill in that ecology. Does this make any sense?
What generates a trait to progeny is often the result of causal loci operating at different levels in a synergistic feedback relationship.
And you say you don't believe in a god?
(Sorry, I had to)
Lastly, it was not my intention to put words in your mouth on that one issue. I have great respect for you, and I enjoy the substantive level of your posts.
An' don't yoo fergit it! Sorry, I'm in a weird mood.
I probably ought to go into some stuff on these, myself, too. So, I will.
"What specific developments has evolution predicted to its credit?"
The point I'm making in asking this particular question is that there are folks who would say that many of the supposed predictions were simply preexisting facts that were accounted for in the wording of the present theory. I'm not taking that position, I'm mostly trying to figure out what the difference is, if any, and whether or not it would actually pose a legitimate challenge.
"What valid arguments do folks have that evolution is not scientific?"
I can't simply accept on general concensus that everyone making the claim that there must be some logical hole in the scientific reasoning is either uneducated or a fanatic. These are legitimate possibilities, I admit, but I would like to know the reasoning behind taking such a stance. I'm reading "Darwin on Trial" by Johnson right now (so, you know a lot of my questions are going to come from that), and one of the points that is attempted in the book (and which, when looked at from a certain perspective, makes imminent sense) is that, since there has never been an observed instance of a given "kind" of animal developing into another "kind," the inference that evolution of one type of cladistically "more basic" life into one "more developed" is hypothesis, rather than theory. Anyone have thoughts on this?
"How is it demonstrable, if at all, that belief in evolution is a faith-based position?"
I have also to disagree with Wonka's point on this, [IMPORTANT] due to the fact that anything can be taken on faith without research into the particulars. Beyond that, I would like to know, if there are any sufficiently well-informed folks who can tell me, what rational argument there is for believing that this is not a theory but a religious or antireligious conviction.
"What logical or empirical proof can be provided to show evidence for a creator?"
I don't disagree that this is a faith-based assertion, but I would like to know what evidence is taken to be sufficient to assert that a creator can be proven. I also do not find the question or any answer to be irrelevant, since I'd like to understand both evolution and ID/Creationism in order to understand the reasons for the debate.
"What predictive power does the theory that there is a creator have?"
Again, I don't believe this is irrelevant, and, if a "hypothesis/theory of God" can be forwarded, I would like to see how it stands up to scientific inquiry. Many have said that ID is a scientific position, and, while I don't necessarily accept it as such, I'd like to see what scientific merit, if any, it does have.
Yes, to a degree, I'll confess to stirring the pot, but that's not my intention. I've noticed that there seem to be a lot of conflicting definitions and depictions of the positions taken by the proponents of both "sides." Yes, folks, I'm getting semantic, but seriously, defining the terms and understanding the stance of one's "opposition" should be important in any disagreement or debate. Please help me understand the bases for the arguments. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 5:06:40 PM |
What generates a trait to progeny is often the result of causal loci operating at different levels in a synergistic feedback relationship.
Wonka...wow...thats quite a sentence...brill....you should write books, no insult intended.. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 5:56:35 PM | "should one key component of an ecology radically change, the rest of the ecology might be expected to follow suit. So, basically, when there's a shake-up, and an environment loses, say, its apex predators, some other predator might "advance" to fill the gap (possibly leading to speciation from its original type), or some new development or developments in the environment or the biota found there might take on the role that an apex predator would fill in that ecology."
Yes that makes sense, and your logic is sound, but I would only say that I think the various mechanisms at work are far too complex to make general predictions like "almost all the species would be driven to change." This is really a question that a professional evolutionary biologist should field, but I'll try. It could be possible that wildly fluctuating environments are actually more conducive to stasis then are mildly fluctuating ones as the taxa must adapt to ubiquitous and rapid fluctuations by evolving a morphology that is more secure and general, and such species may persist through more dramatic climactic changes, while those taxa that have been privileged to a more mildly fluctuating environment may be forced to undergo massive cladogentic speciation from the same event. Of course how large of an event are we talking about? If it is not localized, such as caldera eruption or meteor impact then what I laid out may apply. In smaller localized climactic changes the taxa would be sharing the same pressures over extended time. Also, the converse could play a role- a species that is highly adapted to a specific niche that remains unaffected by the event may be passed by by the pressures of the event. In general though, when the environment shakes things up catastrophically, yes, the effects are likely widespread and synergistic.
"The point I'm making in asking this particular question is that there are folks who would say that many of the supposed predictions were simply preexisting facts that were accounted for in the wording of the present theory.'
They would be wrong. Again, I can't cite specific studies, but I've come across a plethora in my reading that are predictive and later substantiated by empirical evidence. Also, there are more recent methods of verifiability, like multivariate morphometrics, that cohere with the theory, or with a particular hypothesis within the theory, such as punctuated equilibrium.
"I can't simply accept on general concensus that everyone making the claim that there must be some logical hole in the scientific reasoning is either uneducated or a fanatic."
Feral, in the scientific community, there are valid points of debate, but you're not going to find them for the most part in propaganda. The propaganda is mostly prevarication and ignorance.
"since there has never been an observed instance of a given "kind" of animal developing into another "kind," the inference that evolution of one type of cladistically "more basic" life into one "more developed" is hypothesis, rather than theory."
The main difference between empirical emergence in physics and the natural sciences is that in physics laboratory experiments can be fabricated to fit the needs of the theory, where as in natural science, for the most part, you are at the mercy of mother nature's laboratory. Still there are emerging techniques such as computer modeling that will allow more laboratory control. That being said, the paleontological record is factual data, plain and simple. Saying hypothesis rather than theory is nonsensical splitting of hairs, and frankly inaccurate. A theory is a complex intersubjective construct built from hypothesis, which is precisely what Evolution is.
"I have also to disagree with Wonka's point on this, [IMPORTANT] due to the fact that anything can be taken on faith without research into the particulars."
Feral, that's silly. Sure from a personal position, if you dogmatically accept anything with no knowledge than it's faith, but that has no bearing on the theories standing as a sound scientific theory. The theory is not responsible for an individual's unwarranted acceptance. Think about what you said logically. The very fact that the theory is labile and open to refinement or valid rebuttal (note the word valid) stands in opposition to faith, which is dogmatic and unrelenting acceptance. As for your appeal for logical and empirical proof of metaphysical matters I won't go into a long detailed explanation of why that is not possible (at least in this stage in history) I'll just wait to see if anyone wishes to make an argument to the contrary, and I'll rebut. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 6:09:28 PM |
What generates a trait to progeny is often the result of causal loci operating at different levels in a synergistic feedback relationship.
Wonka...wow...thats quite a sentence...brill....you should write books, no insult intended..
two $50 words progeny and loci result in a google search 369,000 occurances,
under genics problem, science > biology one posed a question and it received a 5 star response. The question was pertenent to white laboratory mice. imho, this is how the author wishes to treat all of us without anything but vagueness. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 6:15:38 PM | In regard to the "shake-up" question, thanks. I'd like to hear what some others would think, but you make a lot of sense and tend to lay it out a little more coherently than I think I was doing.
Again, I can't cite specific studies, but I've come across a plethora in my reading that are predictive and later substantiated by empirical evidence.
Thanks, that's pretty much what I was asking.
Feral, in the scientific community, there are valid points of debate, but you're not going to find them for the most part in propaganda. The propaganda is mostly prevarication and ignorance.
While it may possibly be foolish for me to do so, I'm asking this in the spirit that folks will reply from a position of knowledge and not cite mere propaganda. I'm well aware that there are a host of conflicting opinions and interpretations within the scientific community, but I'd like to know what is actually known about the theory, as well as what is logical inference or deduction and what is simply contrarian surmise.
A theory is a complex intersubjective construct built from hypothesis, which is precisely what Evolution is.
I can dig it. That's actually what I figured. The whole "conglomerate theory consisting of observations, hypotheses and tested facts" vs. picking apart the component pieces.
Feral, that's silly. Sure from a personal position, if you dogmatically accept anything with no knowledge than it's faith, but that has no bearing on the theories standing as a sound scientific theory.
Not at all. One of the major assertions is that the majority of folks that accept evolution do so on the basis of faith. If, as we've already established, very few people are informed and aware of what the theory actually is and what it entails, the vast number of laymen that do espouse the theory do so on the faith that the scientific establishment is correct in its assertion that the theory covers facts. Having read and thought and weighed the issue (and continuing to do all of these), I accept the theory myself. However, I don't feel it's silly to characterise the layperson's understanding of the theory thus. What I would advocate would be more education, of course. For the benefit of those who disagree with the theory (for whatever reason), I would like to stress that this should be education regarding what the theory is, what it states, and that it is a theory or hypothesis, if you prefer. Not that it is truth. We've already covered that, and it's not relevant to what I'm saying.
As for your appeal for logical and empirical proof of metaphysical matters I won't go into a long detailed explanation of why that is not possible (at least in this stage in history) I'll just wait to see if anyone wishes to make an argument to the contrary, and I'll rebut.
Honestly, Wonka, I hadn't expected you to. I really would like to know what evidences and arguments those who propound ID accept as scientific, as well as how they relate to the debate. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/9/2006 6:59:27 AM | "the vast number of laymen that do espouse the theory do so on the faith that the scientific establishment is correct in its assertion that the theory covers facts."
Let me re-invoke the same analogy as above. Do you know anything about structural engineering? You might; for all I know you might have a degree in structural engineering, but let's say for arguments sake that you don't. Now let's say, from our previous example that two people each design their own house and build it (assuming we are factoring out the inspection process.) One house is built by the structural engineer and the other by Cletus the slack jawed yokel, and you have the option of being in one or the other during an earthquake. Which house do you choose? Wait, though- you don't know anything about structural engineering, so why would you choose his house? Hmmmmmm...... see where I'm going? The point is that you can understand the methodology of science and have a higher degree of trust in a scientific theory, knowing that the methodology is sound. If you read the vast majority of the diatribes in this forum against the theory, what is most shocking is not ignorance of the theory, but the clear misunderstanding of scientific methodology in general. Quantum physics is a highly complex discipline, one that a layman can only really understand superficially without devoting nearly a lifetime of study, but do you disavow quantum physics? No, you understand the value of the more overarching methodology by which it operates. In fact, there is such a wealth of specific disciplines in the sciences that you couldn't possibly be profoundly familiar with the details of them all. In fact, biology alone is so highly specialized that Dawkins would criticize Gould for seeing the issue too much from a paleontologists perspective, while Gould would levy the opposite criticism against Dawkins as approaching the issue from too much of a geneticists reductionist perspective. I would also point out that, understanding the more comprehensive dictates of critical thinking, you would not say that any theory is "correct" so much as "on the right track." Again, theories are richly complex constructs continually open to refinement. They are algorithmic models if you will- representations of natural phenomenon, but not the phenomenon itself. That Evolutionary theory is on the right track is practically undeniable, even with only a cursory understanding of the details of the theory. The shared ancestry of all life is blatantly obvious to the naked eye, not to mention that shared ancestry is proved by genetic science. The fact that our DNA contains the exact same sequences, some of which are no longer active (and this point is important) as a fruit fly is pretty conclusive that we share ancestry. If all life were created at once, why include genetic sequences from other organisms that aren't even utilized by the organism in question? You may legitimately argue the specific mechanisms by which Evolution operates, but THAT evolution operates is blatantly obvious. | |
|
|
| Page 121 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
