|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 11:03:21 PM | Wilson (Harvard University) estimates that at current rates about ½ of species will be extinct in 100 years (his book ‘The Future of Life’ makes for a rather depressing read).
I know E.O Wilson is sometimes depressing, and also sometimes inspiring, to read. But, despite what he knows, he is optimistic, overall. I am too. If he was not, he wouldn’t bother talking about any of this. Some with rosy glasses on do not want to see, but that doesn't make things that go on go away... (like the situation of life on Earth is in.) Someone who sees all of what is happening, and still has great hope and potential solutions talks, even while others just are silent (I feel sad for those people)... well that person that sees and talks is a great voice of hope. I, like Wilson, see great destruction, but also hope in people understanding things and making changes that help all life.
His famous essay, “Is humanity suicidal,” is timely and on topic.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/diversit/extra/suicide.htm
READ THAT, at least.
All people should at least read that essay (especially those interested in this thread)...
SERIOUSLY, THAT ESSAY is BASIC to our discussion, here. | |
|
candel
|
Joined: 6/16/2005
Msg: 827 | |
| fallacy of irreleveancy
Posted: 10/22/2005 2:08:24 AM | This topic involves fallacy of irrelevancy. Creation ex-nehlo and evolution are two different aspects of human understanding which is in no way compatible to each other.
Evolution is subject mater of biology and creation is the subject mater of religion. Both operate in two different sets of epistemology so it is seems a useless activity to compare both | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 2:14:05 AM | Wonka
Roughly 36 thousand years ago.
Will someone please tell me how to do those cool highlighted quote thingys.
dryad
--"Why do you believe they were? Shorelines are zones of erosion and deposition and leave predictable physical signs. "--
Recent discoveries of "sunken" cities, Off the shores of India, Egypt, and Cuba. The Indian and Egyptian cities are no where near the depth of 3000 ft. (remember the roughly part) but the Cuban find is 2500 ft. down. The initial assumption is that the city sunk as a result of an earthquake. (this is always the first assumption. even before the site is investigated, so you see my agnst towards sciences presumed empirisisum) Further investigation has found a city aprox. 7 miles square and still relatively intact. If an earthquake is to drop a city/landmass 2000 + ft. significant damage would be very evident. In my initial research on this paper I never consider the oceans to be this low, until I stumbled accross this Nat Geo web page. I have found it rather difficult finding credible references for this find. Plenty of news releases, and many Atlantean zelots pages.(seems whenever someone finds a bump in the floor of the ocean it's suddenly Atlantis.)Recently found an interveiw with the discovering oceanographic archeologist, but of course I didn't save the page (I've spent the last hour looking for the site) So in this reference I'll use what I've found as this is still a fact finding mission.
-- What of the Pliestocene extinction?---
In the early 1940’s Dr. Frank C. Hibben, Prof. of Archeology at the University of New Mexico Mounted an expedition to Alaska to look for human remains. The remains he found were not human, but what he found was anything but evidence of gradualism or Uniformitarianism. Instead he found miles of muck filled with the remains of mammoth, mastodon, several kinds of bison, horses, wolves, bears and lions. Just north of Fairbanks, Hibbens and his associates watched as bulldozers pushed the half-melted muck into sluice boxes for the extraction of gold. Animal tusks and bones rolled up in front of the blades “like shavings before a giant plane”. The carcasses were found in all attitudes of death, most of them “pulled apart by some unexplainable prehistoric catastrophic disturbance”. This discovery by Professor Hibben, which is described in greater detail in his book “The Lost Americans”, goes on to discuss that the area in which the animals were found extended for over a hundred miles in every direction and that, “Trees and animals, layers of peat and mosses, twisted and mangled together like some giant mixer had jumbled them some 10,000 years ago, and then froze them into a solid mass
”Charles Darwin wrote: “The extinction of species has been involved in the gratuitous mystery . . . no one can have marveled more than I have at the extinction of species”.
“He declared that for whole species to be destroyed in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil, in the mountain ranges of Peru, and in North America up to the Bering Straits, one must “shake the entire framework of the globe
”Pleistocene geologist William R. Farrand of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: “Sudden death is indicated by the robust condition of the animals and their full stomachs . . . the animals were robust and healthy when they died”
Lastly Professor Hibben appears to sum up the situation in a single statement: “The Pleistocene period ended in death. This was no ordinary extinction of a vague geological period which fizzled to an uncertain end. This death was catastrophic and all inclusive. Pardon the roughness of this, I'm doing a quick edit. as I go.
This is getting rather long winded. There are many more references of Pliestocene species extinctions on a grand scale with mixed species jumbled together at sites in South America, Florida and Asia. Also the frozen Mastodons. I've found in subsequent research nary a mention of these mass extinctions in reference to earth changes.
Also want to throw this out. If a cloud canopy covered the earth there would be a greenhouse effect. The poles would be free of the polar caps. I've have many references of discoveries of animals, plants (redwood forest) within the artic circle and antarctica. I found the redwood forest discovery 500 miles (Axel Heiberg Islands) from the north pole very curious. Some of these trees were dated over a thousands years old. .
Getting late -- hell it is late - axil tilt reference. off the top of my head is either USGS or NASA | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 3:35:42 AM | Will someone please tell me how to do those cool highlighted quote thingys
So, I'm not sure exactly how to explain that without doing that. I'll try. If I do that, I'll be in quote mode. Before the quote, start with the word 'quote' in bracets and finish with the word 'quote,' in brackets, with a / before.
Words.
Do this without actually doing this... I need to spell QUOTE AS quot, this way to show.. spell correctly and this will work. Suppose I want to quote "Words."
So I type (or paste a quote between the bracket 'commands'), as:
[quot] Words. [/quot]
and, if I spell "quote" correctly, I get...
Words.
I hope that helps. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 9:39:13 AM | | Dryad- yes that's confrontational, but that was in reaction to being confronted. That guy follows me around and makes ad hominem attacks on me. I already addressed that by saying when someone goes out of their way to try to anger me, I have a tendency to oblige them. I know, it's something to work on. I meant in general I don't see my posts as confrontational. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 9:57:34 AM | Dryad, I'm not sure about the water canopy thing. I just thought it was an interesting idea. That, and a lot of the stuff Silivros has pointed out make some interesting thinking. I was planning on doing a SF/Fantasy story set in a world prior to the "water canopy collapse" kind of thing, but I'm still working on details. Not even quite sure this belongs in the Creation/Evolution thread. Maybe we ought to come up with a new one for this (really cool) timeline stuff.
Wonka, I'm with you. CR has been hounding you, but I say ignore or just let his irrational goading show how impotent he is. Simple, yes? | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 10:05:10 AM | | Feral- I'm a fan of sci-fi/fantasy myself. In fact I'm some 300 pages into my own fantasy novel. Sounds like a cool starting off point- write it. I can't wait to read it someday. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 10:10:17 AM | Light dawns on marble head.
Sweet
Such are the simple pleasures in life.
Thanks Dharma | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 10:18:18 AM | Drayad-
"There’s a pretty strong argument that the Pleistocene extinction didn’t end and is really part of the current Holocene extinction event. It’s estimated the current rates of extinction rival the big six extinction events. Wilson (Harvard University) estimates that at current rates about ½ of species will be extinct in 100 years (his book ‘The Future of Life’ makes for a rather depressing read)."
Could you recommend some literature regarding the holocene extinction being part of the pleistocene? I'm not familiar with this, and I'd love to read up on it. As for Wilson, is he supported by the mainstream scientific community in that claim? I've heard so many different figures regarding projections of extinction rates that I'm not sure what to give credence to. I've heard everything from close to 1% to 70% from the environmental extremists. Isn't any claim highly speculative? Seems like too many factors involved to really pin down with any precision, so I'd be interested to know more about the methodology in making such predictions. | |
|
| fallacy of irreleveancy
Posted: 10/22/2005 10:30:13 AM | candel
Evolution is subject mater of biology and creation is the subject mater of religion. Both operate in two different sets of epistemology so it is seems a useless activity to compare both
wow, like a kid with a new toy
They seem to be intrinsically linked. If you find a proof to evolution those implications can crossover to creationism.
P implies Q - as true. The real trick though, is to find Q implies P true as well. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 10:44:02 AM | As for Wilson, is he supported by the mainstream scientific community in that claim?
Isn't interesting how many of mankinds greatest achievments were discovered by people who worked outside of the mainstream scientific community?
Sure we could all stand around nodding our heads in agreement as someone bandies about tedious rhetoric, or we could say "ok, good point, but what about this - - -?"
Step out of the box. Brilliant minds are a terrible thing to waste. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 10:46:35 AM | | No argument there Silivros. I have great respect for thinking outside the box. It's integral to the scientific method. I just wanted to know where he stands in relation to his peers at this point in time. In no way did I suggest his theory be dismissed if he is outside the mainstream. I just wanted some perspective. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 10:53:47 AM | | I still marvel at the wonders of technology Wonka, that was a quick response. Or maybe it was all in consciousness? lol | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 11:02:40 AM | Wonka
I would rather find my thoughts found incorrect by jumping too quick to an assumption than to never see an idea because I was blinded by predjudice. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 11:08:03 AM | "I would rather find my thoughts found incorrect by jumping too quick to an assumption than to never see an idea because I was blinded by predjudice."
I think you are creating straw men with regard to my position. I would not disagree with that statement. I see the scientific method as a sort of dual process in that anything goes as far as what it takes to generate intuition and new ideas, but that then needs to be subject to a rigorous methodology of proof, before it is given credence. I love studying philosophy and ruminating on the ideas, but there is a distinction I draw between what I ponder and what I believe. Unless that was just a general statement and not directed at me. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 11:21:08 AM | dryad
I believe in our quest for answers we need to see things in a different light.
• Why do you believe they were? Shorelines are zones of erosion and deposition and leave predictable physical signs.
Predictable, yes to a point, but if we only look for what we expect to see -- that is exactly what we find.
In anological mind, we decide if schrodinger's cat is dead. In bi-nary or body mind it is already decided for us. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 11:25:58 AM | Wonka
The latter statement would be true. Although, if you find it applicable, please feel free to download it into the neurological process. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 11:37:08 AM | The voice of objectivity.
I've always marvelled at the amount of conjecture that can be stimulated by tiny increments of new information. The important point in science isn't always if they are right or wrong, even to the point of ridicule. It is in the number of important questions that they generate.
In all of our debates, arguments, disagreements, I have seen very little criticism of the need to continue questioning, exploring and understanding.
Can't remember who it was, or where, but I once remember reading a comment by a famous intellectual suggesting that out most valuable interactions are with out greatest critics. They are the ones who make us think the hardest.
Respect your critics - and those you criticize.
well said quietjohn-- | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 1:01:29 PM | Wow! you've all been busy!
As for the highlights there's a summary in - http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts148258.aspx. It tells you how to quote and use bold, italic and underline. The quote only works in the original post and the others only work when you edit a post. Go figure!
Dryad, your comment on kittens reared in environments with only vertical/horizontal lines describes a small piece of the work done by Colin Blakemore on the development of the visual system. I also seem to remember that if they are reared only able to see with one eye, they never gain binocular vision. There is a very brief (maybe 2-week) period in the life of a kitten when it must experience these things in order for them to develop these functions. Relevant to some of the things said here are that the brains of such kittens don't posess the nerve cells capable of performing the missing functions. I seem to remember that in the case of binocular deprivation, the areas of the brain responsible for combining images from the two eyes are much smaller than normal. Not sure if the nerve cells die or never appear in the first place but I'm sure I could find the information if it is of interest. The lack of consciousness of stripes or depth perception is accompanied by a lack of the nerve cells capable of performing the function. So these experiments don't seem to help separate consciousness from the physical brain.
Wonka - I'm sorry you were attacked. I didn't see the reason for it here. I've always respected and often been challenged by your comments. As you and perhaps others have said, nothing is gained by hiding your ideas and much is gained by sharing them - even if they are wrong (which I'm not suggesting they are). I've always taken the position that the dumbest questions and comments are the ones that people fail to share.
CR - There are ways to disagree which encourage dialog and even learning rather than discouraging by ridicule and attack. Your ideas are welcome but would probably be better received if you backed off on confrontation. Turn the other cheek instead of grabbing an eye for an eye!.
I've grown to respect and enjoy the divergent views expressed in this thread and would welcome others with reasoned, constructive comments, even if they don't agree with my views. Candel's comment struck a chord. There are definitely different approaches to religious and scientific thinking. The challenge, Candel is to try to to understand each other, not to stop communicating.
Quantum mechanics is no more magic than chaos. I just found an interesting definition in a quantum mechanics book which applies equally well to chaos.
..... the future behavior of this system can only be described in terms of probability functions In quantum mechanics, this is because we can't measure things with sufficient accuracy because of the uncertainty principle. In chaos theory, it is because we can't measure things with sufficient accuracy!
And finally (for now), our beloved Gaia. My view would be that the world takes advantage of the present, rather than having a long-term plan for the future. For example, the Margolis theory that photosynthesizing organisms depleted the planet's carbon dioxide and polluted the atmosphere with oxygen. Gaia's response was to protect those photosynthesizing organisms by incorporating them within other organisms and creating creatures which breathed oxygen and restored carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Perhaps the only choice if life were to survive on this planet. Determinism once more? Maybe, but with such a complex system, perhaps an inevitable consequence that could not be predicted until the circumstances existed which made that consequence inevitable? From a chaotic or quanum mechanics point of view, the inevitable future is gradually revealed as its probability becomes greater. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 2:44:40 PM | "From a chaotic or quanum mechanics point of view, the inevitable future is gradually revealed as its probability becomes greater."
Another gem. Inevitable though? That is really a can of worms, which I like. Strict determinism could be argued to imply inevitability, which is why the inherent probability of quantum physics is one of the philisophical elements that physicists warmed up to from the begining. It seemed to provide some mathematical and empirical evidence that free will truly does exist. Chaos also provides a similar support for free will on a macrocosmic level, only for subtly different reasons- the whole arrow of time quandry I refered to earlier in relation to chaos, with time representing the constant irreversable blossoming of actuality- events you can't stuff back into the box. I'd be curious to know why you say inevitable. I tend to see it (and we're really straying from actual science here) with the analogy that nature, due to fundamental principles and the smoothing out of probability in the transition from quantum to macrocosmic, has ruts that it likely falls into, but there is wiggle room. As a larger metaphor, think of strange attractors in chaos theory. For me, that fuzziness seems to relate to time as we experience it, but I can't say very precisely why. It just resonates. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 849 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 5:24:25 PM | Thanks QuietJohn, I thought you’d know more about the details.
Dear Wonka, there’s a great deal of variation in estimates of both biodiversity and the extinction rate. But well, we’re still finding new species of monkey (new one this year). The differences in the biodiversity estimates are significant, but very little of research funding is dedicated to finding and classifying new species. My entomology prof once said, “give me a entomologist worth his salt, and he can find a unclassified species of insect in Central Park, New York in a weekend.” We know little about the other organisms we share the planet with… even whether they exist. So any prediction will have a large margin of error.
Right now about 2 million species are classified and biologists think there could be up to 50 times that number (the range is 2million -100 million). The estimates in extinction rate vary by about an order of magnitude, but are generally agreed to be about 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background extinction. And the extinction rate estimates range from 17,000 - 100,000 species lost a year. No question, there’s a great deal of uncertainty. Generally, good articles and books will admit to that uncertainty, poor ones will deny it.
Extinction rates are estimated from a number of different methods:
• species–area relationships compared to rates of habitat destruction (commonly used in tropical deforestation) (Reid, 1992)
• change in the numbers assigned to global threat categories (Smith et al., 1993)
• extinction probabilities based on IUCN threat criteria (Mace, 1995).
• ‘Background’ extinction rates based on the average lifespan of species in the fossil record (Raup, 1991).
Probably the best consolidated source for known modern extinctions (post 1500 AD) and endangered species info is the World Conservation Union (WCU, formerly the IUCN http://www.iucnredlist.org/). About 784 recorded extinctions have occurred since 1500 AD (oooo! I wonder if the Ivory Billed Woodpecker rediscovered this year just decreased that by one! There are times you love to be wrong about something).
It was during a Conservation Biology course the theory that the Pleistocene and Holocene extinction rates being part of a continuum of human-driven extinctions. The Pleistocene extinction tends to be characterized as predominantly a loss of mega-fauna, but extinctions of smaller, less charismatic (hence widely studied) species also occurred. The division of the Pleistocene from the Holocene is a bit arbitrary, since in the long term we may just be in another interglacial period.
Wilson’s pretty widely cited in biology circles. The book ‘the Sinking Ark’ (Norman Myers, 1979; Oxford University ecologist) was the first to call wide attention to the issue, much like Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ did to pesticides. There’s been a small but vocal backlash recently; Julian Simon (University of Maryland) argues for much lower rates of extinction.
There’ve been surveys of biologists regarding the current extinction rates (but I don’t have to tell you popularity of an idea doesn’t mean it’s true): http://www.amnh.org/museum/press/feature/biofact.html
“The Sixth Extinction” by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin has been highly recommended to me (excerpt at: http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html and review: http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html ). Peter Ward’s book the ‘End of Evolution’ gives a very readable summary of the mass extinctions, including the current one.
Some interesting weblinks about the subject: http://www.uky.edu/KGS/education/quaternary%20pleistocene%20mass%20extinction.htm
--------------------------------------
• Reid, W.V., 1992. How many species will there be? In: Whitmore, T.C., Sayer, J.A. (Eds.), Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 55–73.
• Smith, F.D.M., May, R.M., Pellew, R., Johnson, T.H., Walter, K.S., 1993. Estimating extinction rates. Nature 364, 494–496.
• Mace, G.M., 1995. Classification of threatened species and its role in conservation planning. In: Lawton, J.H., May, R.M. (Eds.), Extinction Rates. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 197– 213.
• Raup, D.M., 1991. Extinction. Bad Genes or Bad Luck? W.W. Norton, New York. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2005 9:33:12 PM | Interesting numbers, Dryad. Are there similar figures for the other side of the equation - the appearance of new species? Even the most depressing baseline level would suggest 17 new species a year to replace those lost. What about the 'big' species - ones we would notice? (Hehe - like a new monkey !-). I suppose even in the most rapid periods of evolution, history may not have been around long enough for us to notice the changes.
Hehe, Wonka - you can blame Feral for my loss of free will! I'm not sure why you think a chaotic system can't be run backwards. A chaotic system is often represented mathematically as a set of differential equations. Can't you run that both backwards and forwards?
Doesn't a strange attractor merely illustrate the state space (or boundary conditions) within which a system must reside? The system is still totally determinate. The only way to get from one location to another in a strange attractor is along the timeline, however many iterations around the cycle that may take. The divergence of timelines in a strange attractor means that if lots of people set off on different but parallel timelines, they may be fooled into thinking they are starting from the same place, but the divergence will move them to different places, giving the illusion of 'free will'. | |
|
|
| Page 34 of 156
|
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, 57, 58, 59, 60 |
|
Home
login 