|
|
|
|
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 676 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 9:19:25 PM | Love yours too Dharma 
Looks like you all got on an interesting bent while I was busy, sorry I missed it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 9:59:16 PM | | Thanks Dharma. It's good to see a community of people with enough of a background in the sciences to expose the logical parlour tricks used by the I.E. agenda. Drayad, I'd like to elaborate on your comment regarding the wealth of evidence. One thing that has always amazed me is that people don't see the principles of evolution in the domestication of animals. God did not create the boston terrier, man did using the principles of evolution. The cow we know today would not exist were it not for human intervention. For that matter neither would the produce we buy at the grocery store. I read an article with a great quote, because it really gets to the heart of the matter. I can't remember who the author was- teaching inteligent design in a science curriculum is akin to teaching the stork theory in sex education. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 10:30:29 PM | Well, like I've said before, I do 'believe' in a higher power/force/whatever name. I also believe that created all... but I think religions talk about that in poetic language. Science is a different language. There are translation problems. Not like normal lingustic translations... more like... well poetry to literal or math to poetry or etc. Show me someone who can turn Whitman directly into math, then 'we'll' all agree. I can see the differences and similarities--and appreciate all that.
My problem with 'religion' is when those who read Holy poetry and try to turn it into math... or with science when a scientist claims poetic metaphysical 'truth' ...
Science, always looks to be proved wrong... Does religion do this? Some do. What if religion did the same? Just wondering. Not anything other than an idea right now...
Anyone who knows me some here should know that I love to pose questions... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 10:35:05 PM | | You believe in a higher power; I don't, but we both understand that that is irrelevant to the issue. Actually you could turn Whitman into math, but you would lose the poetry, but I think that's your point. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 10:50:24 PM | I don't as much 'believe' in a higher power, than KNOW, without a doubt, that a higher power exists. I WOULD BET MY LIFE... that if I am wrong at this moment that I know that there is a high power--and I am NOT stupid, at all (I PERSONALLY HAVE MANY THOUSANDS OF EMPRIRICAL 'PROOFS'...and DAMN, I am a very hard person to convince... cuz I still try to find a way to 'explain,' in some other way, what has a P=.000000000005+ of happening...). There IS NOT ANOTHER way to explain... so I will start to explain to others, as a scientist.
I don't know how to give that power a name, a religion, or whatever. I don't think that matters to that power, really. BUT I *DO* know, for certain, that is. I don't think that has anything directly to do with this discussion in any ethical way, though. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 11:22:10 PM | Thanks Dryad - the more I think I figure out, the less I realize I understand. Nice to see you back.
Wonka's comment on domestication brings up a good point, especially if Raziels comments on the brink of speciation in dog breeds are correct (see now why I'd like him to keep factual). The 'evolution' of dog breeds has taken an incredibly short period of time in terms of evolutionary history. It seems reasonable to suggest that once an advantageous trait becomes apparent, the evolutionary exploitation of that trait may proceed quite rapidly, giving the appearance of sudden emergence of new species. The relatively low (I think) probability of fossilization combined with such short transition periods would make fossilized transitional forms pretty improbable.
I was also pondering one of our departed debator's comments on chemical equilibria. The creationists often use the arguments that complex molecules would break down into their simpler constituents, so the emergence of complex molecules would be highly unlikely. On the contrary, an equilibrium reaction requires the existence of the substance on each side of the equation, thus implying that the production of more complex molecules is inevitable. Furthermore, those complex molecules will have their own equilibrium reactions to make even more complex molecules. In fact, the chain of reactions to more complex will, to some degree, soak up some of the intermediate reaction products, moving the equilibrium point towards the complex. Equilibria also mean a continuous reshuffling of the molecular milieu, meaning lots of different combinations are available over time. That introduces time as a divisor in calculating the number of atoms required to reach a high probability of certain combinations of atoms being formed. Is there a fallacy here?
Lol - and now a little mischief! - the above paragraph just led me to the notion that things get more complicated over time. The early subatomic particles, then atoms which mostly seem to like the company of other atoms to make molecules .... Bigger molecules, life, societies ..... If you extrapolate backwards to the beginning, whatever existed back then must have been pretty simple! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 11:39:11 PM | This is not *literally* true, but suppose I said, GOD MADE EARTH 1.36 *illion years ago. What if something 'like' the big bang happened... caused by GOD then the Earth and the life types and the conditions to make the 'adam and eve' ('humanity') have a way to live built on diversity prior (after the prior...) .. When things were right (based on diversity prior), G-d made primates, whales, etc. ?
Those formed a few basic 'life types'... e.g., ancestor to all primates (including humans), ancestors to all whales that diversified after, etc (doesn't mean there wasn't something here before that 'creation' by the way)
... I've got lots of questions... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 12:41:44 AM | In the breeding of animal species, is this evolution or merely genetic manipulation?
Although this sounds like symantics. Animals and man may share similar genetics but the difference is within the mind. Or :-) consciousness. We can breed humans for specific traits as we can with animals, and we can also predict similar emotional traits and timelines for these traits by reading the genetic sequencing. This seems more like baking a cake than the implied evolution debated here.
Is evolution simply the biological change in a body or does cognative evolution apply as well?
Do animals evolve cognitively?
If sentient ability is part of the equation which defines evolution can we use the genetic manipulations of animals and plants to validate an arguement that is ultimetly centered around man? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 1:42:47 AM | Do animals evolve cognitively?
Most certainly, all sentient animals do--human and non-human sentient animals do. Though, only human animals can speak about that in a way we understand, mostly. Dolphins, chimps... try. Humans don't understand their languages. And therefore they are called 'dumb.' The 'dumbest' whale is at least at the level of Einstein. Who is dumb?
Someday science will 'prove' that whales--magnificent creatures--have a higher IQ than most human beings. I care less about that. Whales should not be killed.
Would humans condone killing of 'dumb' people? Some would. I would not. I don't condone killing other than for survival--food. I'm vegetarian.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 1:59:09 AM | | To comment on the subject, although I lean greatly to the creation side, I can safely say that an actual answer with tangible evidence is beyond our grasp. So the only thing that can be said is we do not know. I always think to Poe's Zen like poem "Life is but a dream, within a dream" a paradox. The best advice on this subject (in my opinion) is drawn from Taoist teachings, I think Dharma will agree with me here (maybe) all we really know is we do not know nothing, and if we can accept this fact others ideas and beliefs become that more real. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 2:23:09 AM | "Life the Dream" is one of his best-know parables.
Once upon a time, I, Chuang Tzu, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of following my fancies as a butterfly, and was unconscious of my individuality as a man. Suddenly, I awoke, and there I lay, myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming that I am now a man.
Second book of Taosim, Chuang Tzu
---
Music the great communicator
Use two sticks to make it in the nature...
Can't stop the spirits when they need you
Mop tops are happy when they feed you
J. Butterfly is in the treetop
Birds that blow the meaning into bebop
---Chili Peppers, Can't Stop
----
There's a butterfly trapped in a spider's web
(That's my soul up there)
I have stood here before inside the pouring rain
With the world turning circles running 'round my brain
I guess I'm always hoping that you'll end this reign
But it's my destiny to be the king of pain
Police, King of Pain
---
I like to keep this all mostly separate from my science talks, but that is nearly impossible. I am empirical, in thought, and this really is (you will see it is, in time.) Both 'science' and religion will need to redefine. All will feel uncomfortable in a change of thought... but, will those change or fight or? I wonder if science or religion would resist more? Or will those find common ground? Both will have to... BUTTERFLY effects...
J. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 10:01:11 AM | quitjohn2
I read articles of positron currents and still see a positive ion moving across a membrane as something carrying a positive charge rather than what I currrently see as a 'fudgy' electron movement. And electrons don't make positive charges (unless they change into something else), so there must be something positive that can move as well.
I cant realy go into the metaphisics at all or in much depth of the quantum phisics, I just know what I know and being a scientificly minded person I know that I dont even know that for certain! 
I got this from Wikipedia, as my explantions ted to ramble a bit, I hope it helps.
"A body (atom in this case) has a static charge, when the body has more or fewer electrons than are required to balance the positive charge of the nuclei. When there is an excess of electrons, the object is said to be negatively charged. When there are fewer electrons than protons, the object is said to be positively charged. When the number of electrons and the number of protons are equal, the object is said to be electrically neutral."
For more on Positrons, Electrons and all other basic phisics related queries, check out wikepedia as it has very concice (if a bit short) information. (wish I had found this site a hell of a lot earlier!) I STRONGLY recomend reading this as it has more info than I could convey and should help you with your brain chemisrty studies as well. 
__________________________________________________________________________
sillvros
I never insulted your spelling, I was mearly trying to find out what a word I didn't know was, its called research. I'm sorry if it seemed that way but I would never insult another persons spelling as I would appreaciate my spelling not being insulted... doing so is both impolite and illegal due to the fact that I am Dyslexic which is a registered dissability and so picking on me for it would be discrimination. I'm not saying I would ever bother to proseculte anyone, that would just be pointless and silly, just trying to point out that my spelling is bad for a very good and well recognised reason and asking you to respect me enougth to ignore the spelling and try to see what i'm saying instead.
P.S. Quietjohn - - carbules - - will find that reference. have it in some lecture notes from 10 years back, with references. undoubtedly in a box in the attic. They are within the neurons in the brain -- I'll leave it at that for now.
That would be excelent, I would realy like to know more about them cause you peaked my intrest.
________________________________________________________________________
Dharma
I can tell the beginning of today from the start of tomorrow. I could disagree with someone about the exact moment that happens… most agree that is midnight, but there are other opionions.
My persona opinion is the end of the day is when you fall asleap and the beging of the day is when you wake up! 
____________________________________________________________________________
quietjohn2
especially if Raziels comments on the brink of speciation in dog breeds are correct (see now why I'd like him to keep factual)
What do you meen "ARE CORECT"? lol. 
I'm in an appologising mood today so I will appologise for bieng sketchy on details, my brian no works so good sum times. 
_____________________________________________________________________________
everyone
I know I have a tendancy to ramble, so from now on I am going to make a consious efert to be concise and to the point and try to refernce more often so you don't just have my ungramitacaly perfect word to go on.  If you do disagrea with me at all, please point out what you disagrea with and I will either eloborate or admit ignorance.
Also feel free to PM me. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 10:11:01 AM | | Raziel- no need to apologize for anything. We all ramble sometimes, but you make cogent points; that's all that matters in a forum like this. It's not being submitted for publication. Yes your spelling is atrocious, but it's hardly relevant to the logic inherent in an argument, so I've been able to overlook it. I'm not sure I agree that dyslexia precludes you from being able to spell though; it just makes it a more difficult task. Since nothing leaps to mind that I disagree with, I can't address that myself, but keep posting; I'm contentious enough that I'm sure something will come up. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 10:20:05 AM | Silivros- "In the breeding of animal species, is this evolution or merely genetic manipulation?"
Genetic manipulation is evolution. That's kind of my point. The only difference is humans are consciously manipulating the gene distribution as opposed to nature, but genetics is the mechanism that evolutionary principles operate upon.
"This seems more like baking a cake than the implied evolution debated here."
Okay. You could use the same cake analogy for the natural processes of evolution. I'm not sure what you are implying.
"Is evolution simply the biological change in a body or does cognative evolution apply as well?"
Uh, it depends what you mean. Cognition did evolve in a physiological sense. Compare the levels of cognition in mammals and there is a definite trend toward more complex reasoning. If, on the other hand you mean the evolution of shared information within culture then you are using evolution in a broader sense, like social-evolution.
"If sentient ability is part of the equation which defines evolution can we use the genetic manipulations of animals and plants to validate an arguement that is ultimetly centered around man?"
Sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you are implying here. Elaborate? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 10:23:19 AM | chears wonkavision,
Although you and most others may be willing to overlook my attrocious  spelling, there are a few who will not and asume that my poor spelling is the proof they nead to show that I am thick , I have come acros this all my life and probly will continue to do so, especialy in relation to academa and work related areas.
I generaly (please not the word generaly here) find that the people proposing the ID theory and similar discredited belifs, are also the ones who try to pick apart the slightest spelling mistake.
In my opinion it is a way of trying to discredit a person so that they can then state thier own theories as the only alternative to a (poorly) discredited theory.
Personaly I have no problem with the teaching of ID, but not as a science. I equate it to nothing more than atlantis or the formorians. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 10:32:28 AM | | Attacking your spelling instead of your argument is an ad hominem logical fallacy. Nuff said on that matter. I have no problem with I.D. either, so long as it is taught in an appropriate forum. It is perfectly relevant to comparative religion, but, as I said above, teaching it in a science curriculum is tantamount to teaching the stork theory in sex education. It's irrefutably not science. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 10:33:46 AM | I think silivros is talking about sentient evoltion, but I hope not cause that is a SCI-FI term for life eveolving from (insert animal or machien here).
If he is talking about sentience being required by or the goal of evoltion, then I think reading the revised edition of darwins "like a whale" would be a good idea.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 10:35:39 AM | No apologies needed, Raziel. You manage to get your ideas across pretty well. I'm mostly complaining that you make work at getting some of the details. References or links would really help but we manage anyway. Don't compromise your posts
Wonka - not sure what you think dyslexia is , but it's a very challenging disability, especially for people working with the written word. It puts an entire extra layer of information processing between what you think and communicating it to other people. That leaves a dyslexic with an awful lot more to focus on than you and I. No wonder they shortcut the spelling. Have you ever tried walking with a pair of spectacles which reverses left and right? That's perhaps a glimpse of what dyslexics have to face every day of their lives.
EDIT: I guess we all jumped in at once there and I'd withdraw my comment to wonka if I didn't think he was already responding! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 10:49:54 AM | | My brother has dyslexia; I do understand something about it. I have tourettes, so I also understand about challenging (I don't like the word disabilities here, but I'll use it for lack of a better term at the moment.) Learning to concentrate when you have nagging compulsions to tick or obsess is something of a challenge too, but I'm not complaining (not saying raziel is, so please don't assume that.) I enjoy challenges. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 10:50:25 AM | I tell you what though, I do often wonder why Dyslexia evolved? It is a very comon trait and dose not (as far as I am aware) seem to have any ethnic predisposition. It also has difering levels, to a stage where it is imposible to tell some dyslexics from non dyslexics, all the way to people who simply canot distinguish left from right even when shown cards with left and right printed on them.
The only reason I can see, is that it must have provided some kind of benifit to our anticedents, but what I canot imagine, a predispostion to arts dose not seem like an advantage to me. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 11:07:07 AM | | Well, not everything evolves due to some benefit. Sometimes fairly random processes can push evolution, and sometimes populations get caught up in evolutinary feedback loops. Think of the peacock's tail as an example of this. Does it really serve a survival advantage? It's origins do- sexual selection certainly serves an advantage. It allows for healthier genes to replicate, but species often get caught in that loop and continue to evolve seemingly useless traits for any reason but that peahens developed a predisposition for flashy tails. That being said, I don't find it hard to see that dyslexia may have, in some environment been an advantage. Perhaps it allowed people to concentrate on things that were more appropriate to their environment at the time, like that saber toothed tiger chasing them, instead of fretting over details. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 12:25:16 PM | Don't know the answer to that one, Raziel, but persistence of an apparently disadvantageous trait may just mean that it isn't problematic enough to be fatal. And it could also be the by-product of a genetic change that was beneficial. You earlier referred to genetic redundancy. One benefit of this is that the functions of one gene can be replaced (usually not as efficiently) by another gene. Probably one of the many mechanisms to ensure survival in the event of genetic mutations. The new gene may carry with it other functions which evolution will assess and possibly use to its advantage.
As for art, I once said something along the lines of Raziel's comment to an artist girlfriend while looking at an impressionist painting in New York's Metropolitan Museum. She lectured me for 15 minutes and then proceeded to take me on her personal history tour of impressionist painting. As a result, I am convinced to this day that the Impressionist painters understood visual depth perception far better than the most up-to-date scientific researchers in the field. Unfortunately, their mode of communication is not one that science understands, and mostly ignores. I guess she didn't hold my ignorance against me too much since she married me.
Where do you put people like Leonardo DaVinci and Michelangelo Buonarroti? I once remember hearing a comment that smart people thought in words and dumb people thought in pictures. Talk about crestfallen! - I've always thought in pictures. Now I hear that many of the worlds great innovators thought in pictures. How can you use words when there aren't even words to describe what you are thinking about? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 12:38:43 PM | "smart people thought in words and dumb people thought in pictures."
Whoever told you that should not be expounding on who is and is not dumb. Some of the great geniuses in history had more visual intellects. Benoit Mandlebrot is a good example. He is a world reknown mathematician, and one of the pioneers in fractals it's relation to chaos theory. He often did very poorly in algebraic math, not because he could not solve the problems, but because he couldn't show his work in conventional terms. He saw the answers geometrically, but could not explain to his professors, in algebraic terms, how he had arrived at the solution. The human mind and intelligence are far too complex to make innane assesments like that.
"I am convinced to this day that the Impressionist painters understood visual depth perception far better than the most up-to-date scientific researchers in the field."
I can't say I fully agree with this sentence, but I like it none the less. I love impressionist art, and seeing it in a book does not do it justice- very textural, and depth perception... yes. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 12:58:11 PM | I'm not sure about michaelangelo, but leonardo has already been discreadited as being dyslexic (ie he wasn't dyslexic). there are so many stories told about him its unreal, I even heard once that he was autistic. I disagrea with diagnosing dyslexia in anyone posthomusly because the tests to confirm it are all done through direct observation.
I know in my mind, many theories just seem to make sense, but when it comes to explaining them, I don't have the words, articulating my experiances is just to damn dificult. If I could chose wether to be dyslexic or not though... I would definately chose not to be. The percived advantages have not even been proven to relate to dyslexia yet and even if they were, the price is still to great. To have all these ideas and thoughts swimming in your head but be unable to grasp them and show to others is bad eneougth, but to live in a society where you are penalised for this is even worse. And you also have no idea how hard it is to walk into an exam, even the simplest one, knowing that you know all the info you nead, but be unable to get even a quarter of it down in time.
I would have thought, that any genetic anomaly that did not provide an advantage, was not socialy or sexualy selected for and provided a disadvantage, even a non-fatal one, would eventualy be bread out of species? Or am I overlooking an obvius factor to inheratance here? Its getting late so I'm probly overlooking something again. | |
|
|
| Page 28 of 156
|
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 |
|
Home
login 
