|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 11:54:50 PM | Wonka
Aesthetics of existence. Did you not say you were a musician? Do you write your own music? Are you an artist? Does your artistic expression expand beyond mimicry? Do you dream?
Psychic phenomenon has been recorded for thousands of years, obviously many experiences have been misenterpreted, but believing that if science cannot explain a phenomenon than the phenomenon does not exist is akin to the ostrich with his head in the sand. (excuse the pun)
The US govt. spends considerable time and money on the study and development of human psychic abilities. You might read "Psychic Warrior" by David Morehouse. I saw a lecture of his several years ago as well, very interesting.
Science is not all knowing. As you can tell by my posts I am not enamoured with the scientific community. My disdain does not lie in the scientific methodology, its empirical standards (for the most part) Where I have a dissagreement is with scientific arrogance. I like to call it Imperical Empirisism. This obviously doesn't apply to all. In truth just a few, but the perveying collective consciousness can be rather disturbing. Redundent genes and junk DNA? Just because it is not understood does not mean that it is useless. Look at the "nature" of nature. Nature tends to cull out the chaffe. Not a lot of wasted matter. Are we not a part of nature, I believe someone mentioned that recently.
I saw you mention that you don't believe in god. I assumed you mean the gods of organized religion. Well good on you. But believing that we are just a sac of chemicals is rather closed minded. I believe that we are greater than our bodies. Children still believe in wonder, they still believe in majic. And if there is a god, than children are the closest thing to it.
Science should be a tool for expanding minds, not closing them.
Remember the wonder of Willie Wonka? He still believes in majic. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 11:57:06 PM | You did pretty well there, wonka, despite being tired.
physical evolution has been supplanted by social evolution Well, I absolutely agree with this one. I can't find the reference, but I remember reading a book many years ago which argued that individual human beings were pretty mediocre animals, but human society is an extremely successful animal. Come to think of it, perhaps specialization of function in individuals and our development of trade do much to set us apart - both social developments. I wonder if the mutation of our feelings/connections for our children and kin to wider groups of individuals has facilitated this.
Sili - not sure where you get all of your information - it would help to give sources.
The birds we were discussing earlier don't have a neocortex, so it's not the only place which provides reasoning. This is a site on birdbrains http://birds.about.com/od/birdhealth/a/bird_brain_2.htm.
Another interesting revelation is found in hydrocephalics (people with what is commonly known as water on the brain and used to have incredibly swollen heads before treatments were developed). The cerebral cortex is severely reduced in these patients, yet many appear to be quite normal, even in intelligence. http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm
http://www.memory-key.com/MemoryGuide/glossary_brain.htm has a fairly comprehensive list and descriptions of the major parts of the brain.
My take on locations of functions, including memory would be that they are pretty much distributed throughout the entire brain. Recent work has shown that even the spinal cord can learn http://graulab.tamu.edu/NewsItems/NY-Times.Article.html. And many creatures without a central nervous system, let alone a cortex can learn. Eric Kandel won a Nobel Prize for demonstarting that sea snails could learn (well, it was a bit more complicated than that!)
A lot is now being learned about the questions Sili raises using functional brain imaging - FMRI and PET scans for example. Try googling the function of interest with FMRI or PET
'If I have seen further, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants. Isaac Newton (1642–1727)' | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/15/2005 7:03:58 AM |
Evolution is simply change, but in relation specifically to the body, is that change necessitated through survival adaptation? Physical evolution has been documented (and debated) for hundreds of years.
No, not all evolutionary change is either adaptive or selection-driven. Some mutations have no effect on survival, but since they can spread through a population, they're still evolutionary change - like a mutation in eye color (say, brown to blue), which apart from some women liking blue eyes more, really doesn't seem to have much of an effect on my survival chances. There are some scientists who seem to think that adaptive change and natural selection are the only important mechanisms of evolution (or at least their opponents claim they do), but there are other mechanisms involved as well.
But they are still debating within an overall framework of evolution, just disagreeing about mechanisms.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/15/2005 9:42:16 AM | quietjohn- Einstein said essentially the same thing; I wasn't aware he stole it from Newton.
silivros- Okay, all I said was that I wasn't sure what you meant by aesthetics of existence. You must admit your term is a tad vague. So I see you are talking about creative skill and intuition pretty much, yes? And yes, my art does expand beyond mimicry. By the way, when did I mention that I was a musician? I think you got that from my profile and not the forum. Anyway, that's irrelevant, let me address some points you made. Sorry about this, but I am a stickler for logical fallacies.
"Psychic phenomenon has been recorded for thousands of years"
Um... so? So have sightings of faries and elves. I hope as someone with some background in critical thinking, you don't honestly believe that is viable evidence of anything. Ancetdotal evidence is hardly acceptable as proof on anything. The fact is that it has been studied exhaustively for over fifty years, and not one legitimate scientific study (and the word legitimate is crucial here) has produced any results significantly beyond chance.
"The US govt. spends considerable time and money on the study and development of human psychic abilities"
Again, so? The government has also spent time and money studying the effect of bovine flatulation on the atmosphere. I'm not making that up. That is essentially an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because a bunch of people believe something, by no means does that make it true. As I've said before, there was a time when the majority of people believed in a geocentric universe.
"Where I have a dissagreement is with scientific arrogance"
I can agree with this sentiment, only I would say it is something some individual scientists have been guilty of, but the method itself is sound.
"But believing that we are just a sac of chemicals is rather closed minded."
Don't presume to call me close minded. Truth is that requiring evidence is the most open minded one can be. Produce viable evidence and I'll change my mind. No amount of evidence will sway a true believer, so who's close minded? And the existence of god, in terms of evidence, I put on the same level as bigfoot, alien abduction and the tooth fairy. Essentially I adhere to Huxleys agnosticism, but given the paucity of evidence and resonance with scientific knowledge, I essentially "round up" if you will and say atheist. Ultimately I'm agnostic about Santa Claus, but I find the idea of very low probability, so I cut to the chase. This is the third time in these forums I've quoted this by Carl Sagan, but, again, it applies.
"One should be open minded, but not so open minded that your brains fall out."
"Remember the wonder of Willie Wonka? He still believes in majic."
Okay, friend, you've got me there. Seriously though I see the wonder in nature, I just don't ascribe to metaphysical explanations. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/15/2005 11:44:51 AM | The shoulders of giants statement is commonly quoted among scientists and I'm sure Einstein was among them. Hawking used it for the title of one of his book where he republished some of the greatest scientific works throughout the ages - pretty much in their original form - fascinating!
Scientists - closed minded huh? How do they compare with some adherents to religions? Not that I'm including all religions, or all people in a particular religion, but I don't hear many scientists suggesting that you have to believe something or the consequences will be utterly dire and you will regret it for the rest of eternity. Maybe it's just SOME people of all persuasions who tend to be closed minded. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 731 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/15/2005 3:14:25 PM |
I don't hear many scientists suggesting that you have to believe something or the consequences will be utterly dire and you will regret it for the rest of eternity
Well … there are the environmental scientists 
(hehe... sorry, I'll try to restrain myself… although, maybe I’m allowed to tease them, since I am one) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/15/2005 5:23:45 PM | Some recent posts made me think about this...
Ecological type of interaction and sign effects:
Mutualism +/+, both species benefit from interaction (e.g., pollination)
Commensalism +/0, one species benefits, one unaffected (e.g., egrets on cattle)
Competition -/-, each species affected negatively
Predation, parasitism, herbivory +/-, one species benefits, one is disadvantaged
--
I think the last two categories are what 'survival of the fittest' seems to emphasize. I find mutualism and commensalism at least as important and interesting. Dryad's talk about birds made me think of the remarkable honeyguide/human mutualism (I just pasted the story here, rather than rewrite).
"A fascinating facultative mutualism involves the Boran people of Africa, and a bird known as the honey guide. According to rock paintings, humans have collected honey in Africa for 20,000 years. Human hunting parties are often joined by the greater honeyguide (Indicator indicator), which leads them to bee colonies. In unfamiliar areas, the average search time was 8.9 hr when unguided, but only 3.2 hrs when guided by the bird. Borans use fire and smoke to drive off the bees, break open the nest and remove the honey, but leave larvae and wax behind. The bird gains access to larvae and wax. The use of fire and smoke reduces the bird's risk of being stung, and humans increase accessibility of nests. According to the Borans, the honeyguide informs them of: direction, from the compass bearing of bird flight; distance, from the duration of the bird's disappearance and height of perch; and arrival, by the "indicator call". Birds and Borans can survive without the other, but each benefits from this facultative mutualism."
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/ecol_com/ecol_com.html
there are the environmental scientists
Or some will just reincarnate as something other than human beings if we mess up Earth too much as human habitat... ;) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/15/2005 7:08:05 PM | With one breath, with one flow
You will know
Synchronicity
A sleep trance, a dream dance
A shared romance
Synchronicity
A connecting principle
Linked to the invisible
Almost imperceptible
Something inexpressible
Science insusceptible
Logic so inflexible
Causally connectible
Yet nothing is invincible
If we share this nightmare
Then we can dream
Spiritus mundi
If you act, as you think
The missing link
Synchronicity
We know you, they know me
Extrasensory
Synchronicity
A star fall, a phone call
It joins all
Synchronicity
It's so deep, it's so wide
Your inside
Synchronicity
Effect without a cause
Sub-atomic laws, scientific pause
Synchronicity......
--Police, Synchronicity I
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity
"Butterfly effect" and "Chaos theory"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
(Anyone with interest in this topic should really read the short text in those links... and Tao of Physics is neat to read, too.) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/15/2005 8:18:27 PM | Whose side are you on anyway, dryad? 
Well, Dharma, we've been talking about social evolution too. Isn't that included in one of your top 2 choices? Individuals that cooperate to achieve more than they could as individuals?
Interesting thoughts though. Am I being pessimistic when it strikes me that number 4 seems fairly acceptable in modern society? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/15/2005 8:26:39 PM | Whose 'side' is Dharma on, is what I'd like to know 
I've really been enjoying the discussion on this subtopic in the thread (as well as all the other directions this thread takes.) I will not at all be offended when you read my random stuff and continue with the twist on the topic at the moment (and HOPE you do).... If/when I interject a random tangent/thought, please continue with the discussion direction at hand... that #4 is (in my opinion) emp. partly BECAUSE of the social fabric in which it is discussed. (Back to that idea of how a theory is interpreted depends on bias that interprets... so in a 'competition-driven' social situation, that is not only what is 'seen' but also emphasized in a theory.)
I LOVE this thread. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/15/2005 9:41:27 PM |
Well … there are the environmental scientists
(hehe... sorry, I'll try to restrain myself… although, maybe I’m allowed to tease them, since I am one)
Cladists.
--R. | |
|
| |
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 738 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/15/2005 10:26:34 PM | Oooooooo! There are sides???!!
Can I be short-stop?
Cladists!!! Hehe Tsur! At least I know I’m not the only silly one here 
I think our society has some serious hang-overs from Social Darwinism and the idea of “nature, red in tooth and claw” in when they think of what constitutes evolution and ‘survival of the fittest.’ However, species tend to use a variety of all the interactions; mutualism, commensalism, competition and predation.
I remember discussing whether physical evolution was supplanted by social evolution. I’m not entirely convinced to be honest. But I do wonder if what society deems a success, might be rather different then what biology will deem a success in the long term. It's been a very short time since we developed agriculture and a very, very short time since the industrial revolution.
Only in humans and not other species do we tend to separate social evolution from their physical evolution. Isn’t that very dualistic thinking? The classic nature versus nurture argument? I tend to think they interact and have feedbacks into one another. After all, one hypothesis is that the increase in brain size and the evolution of consciousness was partially driven by the need to keep track of complex social interrelationships.
--------------------------------
PS: just a tip… breaking down human interactions into mutualism, commensalism, competition and predation categories does not make for nice, easy flowing cocktail party conversation… *sigh* ...live and learn
*feral grin* | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/15/2005 10:31:53 PM | Okay, I'm grinning. 
BTW, I disagree that physical evolution is at a standstill taking a backseat to social evolution. I liked what you said, in that there is a feedback loop of sorts, and I believe it's possible that the two (physical/social) may complement one another and possibly drive variation in as yet unknown ways. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/16/2005 8:27:06 AM | like a mutation in eye color (say, brown to blue), which apart from some women liking blue eyes more, really doesn't seem to have much of an effect on my survival chances
Sory to call you on this one, but Human Eyes colour apears to be related to Sunlight absorbtian, Populations living in warm climates are almost exlusivly brown eyed where as blue eyes are Very comon in cold climate populations, the reason for this being that blue eyes absorb more light than brown giving a (for example) advantage in spoting prey in low light conditions, but suffer from glare more in strong light conditions.
There are plenty of examples of other phisical characteristic changes that seem to give no advantage to the species, for example there are many birds that are identical except for thier colouration (blue billed gannets and yellow billed gannets for example).
_____________________________________________________
SFL :laugh: :smile:
Enviromentalists eh, go figure! | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/16/2005 10:57:53 AM | | Drayad makes an exceptional point about feedback loops. I would still stress that social evolution, or better yet, the evolution of information, moves at a much faster pace, so it is not a direct one to one relationship. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/16/2005 11:00:20 AM | | The evolotion of information? Its to complicated! Your being 'MEME' to me! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/16/2005 12:44:53 PM | Sory to call you on this one, but Human Eyes colour apears to be related to Sunlight absorbtian, Populations living in warm climates are almost exlusivly brown eyed where as blue eyes are Very comon in cold climate populations, the reason for this being that blue eyes absorb more light than brown giving a (for example) advantage in spoting prey in low light conditions, but suffer from glare more in strong light conditions.
My eyes change several colors. From green to yellow to blue to brown. So where would I fall in this catagory? | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/16/2005 10:28:47 PM | I think he is a chameleon. Wait… no, sorry, I think that’s me.
dryad said, breaking down human interactions into mutualism, commensalism, competition and predation categories does not make for nice, easy flowing****ail party conversation…
I agree. I also don't think that breakdown works that great for any species. I think those sorts of classification systems create frameworks to talk about phenomena, but never really accurately describe what is 'really happening.' Scientists (and everyone, really) never see what 'really' is there, but what is there filtered through perception/lens. Depending on who looks at that honeyguide (assuming they know nothing about prior) could invent all kinds of plausible ecological stories about what is happening there, based upon what is viewed. That is one difference that sometimes exists between hard science (that can be done in labs and controlled) and ecological science (which is science plus plausible scientific story telling based on observations...) Just some random thoughs... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/16/2005 11:28:09 PM | | I just don't think eye color has anything to do with where you live. In any region there are people with several different colors or like me and their colors change. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/16/2005 11:34:39 PM | Well, I've been out of it, what with work and trying to catch up on months' worth of sleep in the space of a week, so I've got to play catch-up here, as well. Which means reading all the posts I've missed, and responding. So, we begin. First off, I'm not up on all the QT stuff and, while I've a practical-application and conceptual knowledge of much of the physics being discussed, I about feel out of my depth with some of the stuff going on. Don't worry, I'll figure it out or ask if I need clarification. Crux of this post, however, is this:
Proponents of creationism (and to a lesser extent, intelligent design) start with an absolute idea that there is a divine being who created the universe. Therfor there is no need to use the scientific method. This idea is not a theory, it is an absolute. It belongs in theology, not in science. It really is just that simple.
I agree. I also disagree. The thread was begun with questions, and in order to understand the debate more fully (I really do understand most of it, but intellectual exercise is fun), I've chosen to play "deity's advocate" and attempt to find answers to the questions. I realise this is not necessarily a very "scientific" vantage point from which to begin, but, while some incredibly good discussion has gone on regarding scientific hypotheses and understandings, this really is a religion forum, so I don't feel particularly constricted (Yes, that comment has a target painted on it for ease of lining up your crosshairs. Carry on.). In addition, however, as I've said, I intend to seek potentially empirical verifiable/falsifiable arguments in response to the posted questions. This is in support of an observation: "Wow, with all the complex intricacy of life and its many working parts and interdependencies, I wonder if it could be the result of a superintelligent designing agent." It is also an attempt to "buck the herd" or go against the flow in saying it may be possible, rather than resorting to finelining the distinction between logic and faith, claiming almost as a knee-jerk, possibly defensive, reaction that the present view of Intelligent Design as a theory is faith-based and absolute, and therefore not scientific. I agree on that point, but I don't think it invalidates the possibility that _an_ intelligent designer _could_ have had a part in the incidence of life on our planet. Basically:
Intelligent design is a theology (or theological idea) that allows for more tolerance of science than creationism, but it is not, itself, science. It is really that simple.
Yes, the "hypothesis/theory" given this name fits exactly what you say, however, that does not mean evidence couldn't be found to support the view that something similar happened. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/17/2005 1:01:30 AM | Okay, back into the fray! Here we go:
what holds that matter in place?
The bible says that Jesus holds all things together.
Spoken like a true bible school toddler. From the mouths of babes?
Hehe - the scientific method.
I agree with QuietJohn here. Sure, you do the study/research/experiment stuff, but that's for validation.
Let's not scoff at the scientific method. It does have considerable merit.
This is what I mean. It's a method, not a guideline! The method's the tool to try and figure out what you're looking at. And you almost always start with an idea of what you think it is (hence the whole hypothesising thing...). And, yes, it has merit, that's well said. Far too often, folks have a tendency to ignore that and use it as the determinant of merit. "Let's not scoff...?" vs. "Thou shalt not take the name... in vain?" Sometimes I wonder about things...
No scientist casts bones for instance to develop a theory.
For instance. Why not? It might work, who knows? I just went through a couple of pages of folks talking about what a powerful factor at a subatomic level (and, presumably further on, by extension) the concepts of chaos, quantum, and probability can be. So, what's to prevent a person from using a random probabilistic approach to help him decide in which direction to take his studies and researches? I'm not saying I recommend using "the runes told me so" as a proof in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, but I like the idea of "using every trick in the book and then some to figure out new things." Isn't that the point? Then, you go back and filter it all through the most objective research and experiments you can to verify, right? Sounds good to me, at any rate.
The ID folks are thinking hard
But not hard enough! It seems to me they are missing one key point, who designed the designer?
Who says there was one? Might not be too generous, but I've noticed it's the folks who refuse to believe there could have been a designer that insist an originator must have had someone to originate them! And we say Creationism is silly!
Seems to me ID, Creation or Evolution all have the same problem, when/how did it all start?
Yet again, someone (Creationists/IDers) already have an answer for this. I'm not saying they're right (I don't know), but I'm not saying they're wrong, either (again, I don't know). Evolution, by the way, makes no claims about the "start" and doesn't need to. In fairness, it's those who disbelieve evolution as a process that insist there must be a beginning, and that it has to be included in the explanation of process. Why is that? Boy, I'm just full of questions tonight.
Not really at you QJ2, I agree that both sides need to open their minds and consider all possibilities. One thing I have learned from history is that we have always been proven wrong in our beliefs.
Exactly. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/17/2005 12:09:39 PM | my comment:
who designed the designer?
Was in response to those
who disbelieve evolution as a process (and) insist there must be a beginning
Yet
seem to have no trouble believing God sprung up out of nowhere???
I find it easier to believe that a few random elements in our oceans got execited and joined to form the first simple cell. Rather then a Super, All Knowing, Omniscient Being randomly being created out of nothing. Which has the higher odds of improvability?
(Creationists/IDers) already have an answer for this.....Why is that?
Although I think you may have an idea with the Runes. Do a casting or two when you've exhasted all other ideas and see what new pops up.
Only in humans and not other species do we tend to separate social evolution from their physical evolution. Isn’t that very dualistic thinking?
Agrree here too, Life is a very complicated thing and I believe it is a mistake not to keep the bigger picture in mind and take into account ALL the influences, as each one balances the others. | |
|
|
| Page 30 of 156
|
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, 55, 56 |
|
Home
login 
