Evolution

[The Atheist]

I thought I'd see if anyone was interested in having a serious discussion on evolution, because so much of the bias against current scientific theories of evolution are often based on simple mistakes like this:

http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/vv254/CharmanConsultingLtd/laddervstree.gif

Any takers?

(I promise to leave the Bunsen burner turned off.)















Mostly...

[librarius_qui]

Mostly...

mostly what, exactly?

If it's about the picture, both are wrong, in my understanding ... :rolleyes: (Man didn't come from insect. Both insect and man may have common ancestor -- according to science --, but it's a more serious talk than the image shown above ... Even so, it's a good begining.)

If you're talking about the Bunsen burner ... it's up to Serious Cat!

[andave_ya]

I'll bite. Where's the mistake?

[The Atheist]

mostly what, exactly?

That does refer to the Bunsen burner.

:D


If it's about the picture, both are wrong, in my understanding ... :rolleyes: (Man didn't come from insect. Both insect and man may have common ancestor -- according to science --, but it's a more serious talk than the image shown above ... Even so, it's a good begining.)

Nope, the right-hand picture is quite right - even if there wasn't one common ancestor, the single-celled organisms were similar enough to be considered fruit from the same tree.

It's just not a well-drawn tree.


I'll bite. Where's the mistake?

The ladder is a diagram used by evolution deniers who misrepresent evolution as goal-based.

[andave_ya]

The ladder is a diagram used by evolution deniers who misrepresent evolution as goal-based.

Okay. Then if not goal-based, what is it?

I've, ah, run up against evolution with you before ;). I just want to define the terms before I start making any arguments.

[JBI]

Evolution is just one step. Not saying it is wrong, because, from all we know, it most certainly is not, but people like to think of it as some conclusive answer, which it is not, and doesn't pretend to be. The actual discussion of it though, requires what we would call a deep scientific understanding of the topic, something which I personally do not posses.

As to how it functions - I think we now have a clear idea of the picture. As far as I know though, there isn't much bias against evolution. I can't see how a scientific understanding can have a bias, unless we just assume it is true, which is something we don't do.

Unless of course you are implying that in certain countries (insert country we are all thinking of here) people bias against it. Well, that's nonsense at any rate, and gets too much media coverage as it is.

As for goal based - it is not goal based, but the ladder does show an important feature of it - the processional evolution, meaning the fish came first, or rather, the fishlike thing came first, as we are made to believe life started in the water. Certainly the human shaped primate is a later stage.

[The Atheist]

Okay. Then if not goal-based, what is it?

It isn't anything. Mutations happen through the interaction of viruses or other influence and either turn out to be beneficial or not. Beneficial ones survive and prosper, others die out.

Because only the strong survive, it tends to look like a goal-based system, but that's an incorrect way of seeing it. It just is.



Evolution is just one step. Not saying it is wrong, because, from all we know, it most certainly is not, but people like to think of it as some conclusive answer, which it is not, and doesn't pretend to be. The actual discussion of it though, requires what we would call a deep scientific understanding of the topic, something which I personally do not posses.

I've been looking into the subject for over 40 years and disagree with you. The excellent web resources available also tend to refute the idea. I'm nobody's botanist, but I think it is possible to have a lay understanding of the subject.

Just as you don't need to be a nuclear physicist to understand an atomic explosion, I don't think a degree in botany or genetics is essential to understand evolution.


As to how it functions - I think we now have a clear idea of the picture. As far as I know though, there isn't much bias against evolution. I can't see how a scientific understanding can have a bias, unless we just assume it is true, which is something we don't do.

Unless of course you are implying that in certain countries (insert country we are all thinking of here) people bias against it. Well, that's nonsense at any rate, and gets too much media coverage as it is.

I started the thread because of some comments in a religious discussion showed that people still have been taught evolution by people biased against the fact that it exists. Country of origin is irrelevant.


As for goal based - it is not goal based, but the ladder does show an important feature of it - the processional evolution, meaning the fish came first, or rather, the fishlike thing came first, as we are made to believe life started in the water. Certainly the human shaped primate is a later stage.

And that's just the kind of misconception which abounds and which creates the opportunity for misinformation.

Flowering plants appeared after mammals, does that make them "higher" than mammals?

The ladder doesn't show any feature of evolution, and since the earth will probably be around for a few billion years yet, it would be a little arrogant to assume that we're at the top of any chain beyond the food one right now. We've ruled the earth for a few thousand years while dinosaurs held complete control for over a hundred million years. Check back on that idea in several hundred million years time.

[PoeticPassions]

The drawing should have included a bird as well. :)

[The Comedian]

Here's one thing that I've never felt that evolution (what little I know of it) has really explained well: How did mud turn into an amoeba? The step from non-life to life just does not seem like a small change. Or, if mud never did turn into an amoeba, then life must have just appeared one day, which is not evolutionary.

I'm no theist really, just a curious agnostic. What's the going evolutionary idea on life's origin?

Good Hunting!

EDIT: I used the mud/amoeba language for mere illustration's sake, not out of any precise scientific understanding.

[JCamilo]

Evolution does not really cover the origem of life, altough the natural laws must be the same, affecting the process. Obviously, no theory about the origem is today satisfactory like Natural Selection is.

[andave_ya]

It isn't anything. Mutations happen through the interaction of viruses or other influence and either turn out to be beneficial or not. Beneficial ones survive and prosper, others die out.

Because only the strong survive, it tends to look like a goal-based system, but that's an incorrect way of seeing it. It just is.

So, we're continually evolving, but we're not going anywhere? Is the world infinite?

Isn't that just theoretical, though? Seems to me that a person could interpret it in whatever way they please without changing any of the ideas evolution holds.


I started the thread because of some comments in a religious discussion showed that people still have been taught evolution by people biased against the fact that it exists. Country of origin is irrelevant.

As is location of thread. TheAtheist, I took a class last year with an evolutionary psychologist, but I (a simple layperson) came up with questions that the professor wouldn't answer because "they'd take up the rest of the classtime." My point is, there's a difference between bias and between interpreting the "facts" differently. I picked the interpretation that covers more bases than evolution does.

[The Atheist]

Here's one thing that I've never felt that evolution (what little I know of it) has really explained well: How did mud turn into an amoeba? The step from non-life to life just does not seem like a small change. Or, if mud never did turn into an amoeba, then life must have just appeared one day, which is not evolutionary.

I'm no theist really, just a curious agnostic. What's the going evolutionary idea on life's origin?

Good Hunting!

EDIT: I used the mud/amoeba language for mere illustration's sake, not out of any precise scientific understanding.

I think it's sensible to stick to meaningful but not entirely correct terms if it helps.

As noted, that's not part of evolution, although it did, of course start the evolutionary process.

The term for the creation of life is "abiogenesis". Exactly how it happened will remain in doubt until we actually manage to simulate the process in a laboratory, and since we have no idea what the exact chemical compilation of the earth was 4 billion years ago, it's pretty hit and miss and various theories abound.

What we do know for sure is that amino acids exist, both as separate molecules - in the mud, as it were - and inside living tissue of all types, plant and animal. We also know that amino acids are apt to replicate on their own; pions - the source of mad cow disease - are a great example of them. Prions kill brains by going around busting things which causes proteins in the brain to "free flow" and then they replicate the pattern of the prions inside the brain - much the same as a virus does, but while there is debate over whether viruses are "alive" prions definitely are not.

It's not too big a jump to see replicating protein suddenly making the jump to "life", so at the moment, that's the direction scientific enquiry is taking. There are some interesting competing theories, one of which is all about data input from the sun, which makes a kind of sense as well. As a teenager in the 1970s, I predicted that we'd have the answer by now, but we're still looking. We're a lot closer than we were 35 years ago, but whether I'll live to see life created from chemicals in a lab, I can only hope!

I hope that helps.


So, we're continually evolving, but we're not going anywhere? Is the world infinite?

The world certainly isn't infinite, as it will be destroyed by the sun at some stage. Whether or not humans will exist at that stage, I have no idea, but my tendency is to think that we won't.

The problem with imagining evolution is the enormous time-scales involved. People wonder why humans aren't evolving into something else. We may well be, but it also might take 5 million years and we've only been writing things down for a few thousand.

Just as a divert, I think human intelligence is a dead end and that we'll die out. At that stage, some species will take our place at the top of the food chain.

Imagine an alien arrival to earth standing where you are in 50,000,000 years time, excavating a trench and finding fossil records of humans. They will deduce that a species rose to prominence then died out, with insect life then dominating the planet until the alien's arrival.

We're looking at evolution from particular point in time and it tends to distort the view.


Isn't that just theoretical, though? Seems to me that a person could interpret it in whatever way they please without changing any of the ideas evolution holds.

No.

While DNA can mutate, it isn't interchangeable, which is why hardly any cross-speciation exists in the wild. Even very similar birds, which could produce hybrid offspring just don't do it. The hard evidence behind the theory of evolution fills libraries.


As is location of thread. TheAtheist, I took a class last year with an evolutionary psychologist, but I (a simple layperson) came up with questions that the professor wouldn't answer because "they'd take up the rest of the classtime." My point is, there's a difference between bias and between interpreting the "facts" differently. I picked the interpretation that covers more bases than evolution does.

Ah, well that's just bad teaching, but the thread already has a few decent questions, so it wasn't a bad idea either way.

[librarius_qui]

So, we're continually evolving, but we're not going anywhere? Is the world infinite?



You know? According to my little understanding of the Evolution theory, man walks toward extinction ... Once religions say something similar, what's the worry? We all know it, and we all can see it.

[andave_ya]

It's not too big a jump to see replicating protein suddenly making the jump to "life", so at the moment, that's the direction scientific enquiry is taking.

:lol: Why isn't it that big a jump? Define "big." Did life happen by an accidental mutation? Then how did...brains come into existence, because life doesn't necessarily mean intelligence? If millions of years, whyyyyyyy is there such a range of types of humanity - how can we have a Hitler in the same generation as an Einstein? Why are there so many different personality types, and how come the dominant ones haven't killed out the submissive ones? Why can some people murder without a second thought and others not be able to kill a fly?



The problem with imagining evolution is the enormous time-scales involved. People wonder why humans aren't evolving into something else. We may well be, but it also might take 5 million years and we've only been writing things down for a few thousand.

May I suggest another? transitional species. As fervent a creationist as I am, the thousands of transitional species there must be lying around someplace would be evidence, incontrovertible, that evolution must have taken place.

Though I must say, the scrambling around people have done throughout the centuries to come up with one - Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon man, Java Man, etc. - is rather pathetic and not at all scientific. Not at all honest, either!

Furthermore, why don't scientists everywhere unanimously embrace evolution theory? Why do they find things that disprove it?


Imagine an alien arrival to earth standing where you are in 50,000,000 years time, excavating a trench and finding fossil records of humans. They will deduce that a species rose to prominence then died out, with insect life then dominating the planet until the alien's arrival.

Insects? why insects? Aren't they lower on the food chain/evolutionary process?


While DNA can mutate, it isn't interchangeable, which is why hardly any cross-speciation exists in the wild. Even very similar birds, which could produce hybrid offspring just don't do it. The hard evidence behind the theory of evolution fills libraries.

Wait, wait, WAIT. In the first sentence there's no "cross-speciation," which I take it means transitional species? And yet in the third sentence "the hard evidence behind the theory of evolution fills libraries"? Really? But even "very similar birds, which could produce hybrid offspring just don't do it."



You know? According to my little understanding of the Evolution theory, man walks toward extinction ... Once religions say something similar, what's the worry? We all know it, and we all can see it.

But lib, evolution makes man god, which is NEVER good!

[Nightshade]

But lib, evolution makes man god, which is NEVER good!
Not arguing either way but how, does that work. God is Omnipotent and a maker, even with evolutionary theory Humans didn't create themselves, they are a product of a greater force, perhaps random chance perhaps evolution itself. if evolution creates any 'false gods' then as I see it it follows it would be Nature, Evolution itself, random chance or Chaos that becomes the controlling feature and thus by that argument God.

Me I tend to stand with evolution is a feature or by product of Creation or even the Tool of Creation, Ive never seen why God and evolution can't co-exsist.
I mean the humans evolved from mud thing? wasn't Adam made of dirt or dust?

[Stargazer86]

Not arguing either way but how, does that work. God is omnipetant and a maker, eeven with evolutionary theory Humans didnt create themselves, they are a product of a greater force, perhaps random chance p[erhaps evoloution itself. if evoloution creates any 'false gods' then as I see it it follows it would be Nature, Evoloution itself, random chcnae or Chaous that becomes the controlling feature and thus by that argument God.

me I tend to stand wiith evoloution is a feature or by product of Creation or even the Tool of Creation, Ive never seen why God and evoloution can't co-exsist.
I mean the humans evolved from mud thing? wasn't Adam made of dirt or dust?

Bingo. :thumbs_up

[The Atheist]

:lol: Why isn't it that big a jump? Define "big." Did life happen by an accidental mutation?

Well, if you check out strings of protein and a single-celled life form, the onylrecognisable difference is that the cell has a cellulose wall around it. That's why viruses are a great example - some are enclosed in cellulose, some aren't.


Then how did...brains come into existence, because life doesn't necessarily mean intelligence?

Correct. Brains evolved as a result of the cortex being the place where nerve signals were transmitted from, and at some stage, became able to store information.

If you imagine a tree, which is alive but has no brain, and a snail, which is alive and does have a rudimentary brain, there isn't much difference in "intelligence". A tree loses its leaves in winter because different receptors notice the changing temperature and the DNA is coded for leaves to fall off. A snail is reacting the same way to its environment, but through a different system.

The evolution of animalian intelligence is mirrored by computers, but in a much shorter time span, obviously. Early computers were incredibly slow and ineffectual compared to the present day. I recall seeing one 40 years ago which took up a whole room, but took 2.5 hours to do a payroll I can now do in about .1 of a second on my laptop.


If millions of years, whyyyyyyy is there such a range of types of humanity - how can we have a Hitler in the same generation as an Einstein? Why are there so many different personality types, and how come the dominant ones haven't killed out the submissive ones? Why can some people murder without a second thought and others not be able to kill a fly?

That's nothing to do with evolution at all - beyond evolving the ability to make those decisions. All that does is prove that morality isn't hard-wired. Some people have no morals.

As to the dominant ones killing all the submissives, I don't know whether you follow the news pages at all, but it's still happening. Check out Rwanda for selfish genes at work. Another excellent example I have locally is the Moriori - a tribe which were exterminated by other tribes. And as to Hitler, he had a pretty good go at wiping several races out.


May I suggest another? transitional species. As fervent a creationist as I am, the thousands of transitional species there must be lying around someplace would be evidence, incontrovertible, that evolution must have taken place.

All you need to do is ask...

In fact, the links already given cover an enormous amount of transitional species. Archaeopteryx is a favourite as the transition between dinosaurs and birds, but if you've missed data on transitional species, you haven't been looking hard enough.

Seek and you will find!

:D


Though I must say, the scrambling around people have done throughout the centuries to come up with one - Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon man, Java Man, etc. - is rather pathetic and not at all scientific. Not at all honest, either!

Incorrect.

Yes, there have been a couple of bad errors and a fraud, but overall, the science is strong. Again, you need to be aware of the miniscule number of animals which ever become fossils. Not having all the data is a strength, not a weakness.


Furthermore, why don't scientists everywhere unanimously embrace evolution theory? Why do they find things that disprove it?

Alas, if you have a look at actual scientific journals, the theory of evolution is embraced by all scientists. The only deniers are a small clique of creationists, and the classic example of that "science" is where Michael Behe had to admit in court, under oath, that creationist science isn't science at all.

There is not a single piece of published data which refutes evolution.


Insects? why insects? Aren't they lower on the food chain/evolutionary process?

Nothing is higher or lower than anything else in evolution. We might be smarter than insects, but they have some pretty cool systems which work - bees & ants, for example. Most insects can cope with temperature extremes and after having survived for ~350 million years, I don't see them dying out anytime soon.


Wait, wait, WAIT. In the first sentence there's no "cross-speciation," which I take it means transitional species? And yet in the third sentence "the hard evidence behind the theory of evolution fills libraries"? Really? But even "very similar birds, which could produce hybrid offspring just don't do it."

No, a tyransitional species is a species which has undergone mutation in a successful way and which then mutates again to become the new species. Refer archaeopteryx again.

Evolution isn't a result of species interbreeding - although there could be a case that it has happened in the past. The point was that similar species, which could breed - tigers & lions, for instance, and which have bred in captivity - just don't do it.


But lib, evolution makes man god, which is NEVER good!

No it doesn't, as leading theologians from the pope to the Archbishop of Canterbury will quickly disabuse you of. They both accept evolution as factual and it makes no difference to their faith at all.

[JBI]

It isn't anything. Mutations happen through the interaction of viruses or other influence and either turn out to be beneficial or not. Beneficial ones survive and prosper, others die out.

Because only the strong survive, it tends to look like a goal-based system, but that's an incorrect way of seeing it. It just is.




I've been looking into the subject for over 40 years and disagree with you. The excellent web resources available also tend to refute the idea. I'm nobody's botanist, but I think it is possible to have a lay understanding of the subject.

Just as you don't need to be a nuclear physicist to understand an atomic explosion, I don't think a degree in botany or genetics is essential to understand evolution.



I started the thread because of some comments in a religious discussion showed that people still have been taught evolution by people biased against the fact that it exists. Country of origin is irrelevant.



And that's just the kind of misconception which abounds and which creates the opportunity for misinformation.

Flowering plants appeared after mammals, does that make them "higher" than mammals?

The ladder doesn't show any feature of evolution, and since the earth will probably be around for a few billion years yet, it would be a little arrogant to assume that we're at the top of any chain beyond the food one right now. We've ruled the earth for a few thousand years while dinosaurs held complete control for over a hundred million years. Check back on that idea in several hundred million years time.


Again, here you go off trying to form your argument based on a fallacy of your own. Yes, plants may have formed after primates, but the plants we have now have progressed, evolved, from the plants that were there before, as to better fit their environment, and adjust to changing environment. That is a form of progress, as progress means a progression, I.E. something that changes slowly toward a different thing. You are the one who said we are at the top, and, as for now, we are, as we are more evolved from the previous primates that we were before - we are better fit for survival, which is the key function in evolution. You are assuming a morality on it, to try to disvalue the progressive element, but even if we have gone toward something that is harmful, we have still progressed to it, the same way the bacteria have reformed themselves to combat against our previous methods of destroying them. The ants have progressed, the amoebas in the water have progressed - everything has. The chain of being is the construct that doesn't work, not the progressive process.

[The Atheist]

Again, here you go off trying to form your argument based on a fallacy of your own. Yes, plants may have formed after primates, but the plants we have now have progressed, evolved, from the plants that were there before, as to better fit their environment, and adjust to changing environment. That is a form of progress, as progress means a progression, I.E. something that changes slowly toward a different thing.

Nope, you've completely misunderstood.

Coelacanths are almost totally unchanged after ~350,000,000 years and many insect appear to be identical to hundreds of millions of years ago. Things only change if a mutation is beneficial, and some forms of life are fine as they are. Ferns are much the same after half a billion years.

No fallacy.


You are the one who said we are at the top, ....

Another mistake. I said we're top of the food chain, which is correct. As I stated a post or two back there is no "top" in evolution.


...and, as for now, we are, as we are more evolved from the previous primates that we were before - we are better fit for survival, which is the key function in evolution.

We are more intelligent, not more evolved. There is no "more evolved". We are no more evolved than an amoeba. Different, sure. Better? Only if you're into making qualitative assessments about humans, which doesn't work for me.


You are assuming a morality on it, to try to disvalue the progressive element, ...

What?

I'm sorry, but I just can't figure where you get any kind of morality here, because morality has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about.


...but even if we have gone toward something that is harmful, we have still progressed to it, the same way the bacteria have reformed themselves to combat against our previous methods of destroying them. The ants have progressed, the amoebas in the water have progressed - everything has. The chain of being is the construct that doesn't work, not the progressive process.

You seem to be stuck on the incorrect idea that evolution is goal-based. That it isn't is entirely demonstrble by looking at species which have become extinct, thereby refuting your notion of constant improvement. It just doesn't work the way you seem to have in mind.

I agree it's confusing, especially when you look at human achievement, because it makes progress look exponential, but that's to do with maths, not evolution.

[JCamilo]

JBI, interesting enough, Darwin was under the romantic age...
he reluted to use the term evolution. Exactly because it implied the notion of progress (which mean getting better). But Evolution was a term already accepted and he only published his 20 years research because Wallance adressed to him a letter saying he would and the term Evolution was there. So, he had to accept (being no great writter, he had not the capacity to create anything to replace it).
It was a romantic age, and Evolution just fell on the right laps, but as scientific theory, it was mostly misunderstood - Darwin never meant it as progress, unless the progress is the sucess of survival. An amoeaba is as much envolved as human beings. Obilivious, I am talkilng from the point of view of someone interessed about Darwin impact (imeasurable) on culture, and texts (his great father being a relevant poet talking about evolution already) beucase it is, in my opinion, one of the most relevant shfts of our cutlure and misundertood texts ever.

[billl]

Take it easy Atheist! A little more empathy might help in the recruitment.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Originally Posted by JBI
Again, here you go off trying to form your argument based on a fallacy of your own. Yes, plants may have formed after primates, but the plants we have now have progressed, evolved, from the plants that were there before, as to better fit their environment, and adjust to changing environment. That is a form of progress, as progress means a progression, I.E. something that changes slowly toward a different thing.

Atheist writes,
"Nope, you've completely misunderstood.

Coelacanths are almost totally unchanged after ~350,000,000 years and many insect appear to be identical to hundreds of millions of years ago. Things only change if a mutation is beneficial, and some forms of life are fine as they are. Ferns are much the same after half a billion years."


I don't see how JBI made the mistake you're suggesting. Ferns reached how they are via a progression (from how they were before). You have introduced some sort of conflict about whether a stable form can be reached. JBI didn't bring it up. I figured it out by looking closely at what was written. You seem to have a habit of beginning your "arguments" with zippy attempts at humiliation. But if you slow down a bit and read carefully, you'll see that JBI actually makes the connection between progress and changing environment. There's no suggestion that unnecessary or non-beneficial changes are occurring.


----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Atheist wrote (further back)

Just as a divert, I think human intelligence is a dead end and that we'll die out. At that stage, some species will take our place at the top of the food chain.


Originally Posted by JBI
You are the one who said we are at the top, ....

Atheist then wrote:

Another mistake. I said we're top of the food chain, which is correct. As I stated a post or two back there is no "top" in evolution.


Well, technically right, I guess, but in no way deserves the "another mistake" that kicks things off. Re-reading the topic that you're addressing when you mention human intelligence's possible dead end, you are directly addressing humanity's prospects for evolving into something else, and how something else might replace us. Is being at the top of the food chain related to evolution? If not, why did it cap YOUR argument about the prospect of further human evolution. I mean, I can see why JBI might've gotten off course...


----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Originally Posted by JBI
...and, as for now, we are, as we are more evolved from the previous primates that we were before - we are better fit for survival, which is the key function in evolution.

Atheist wrote:
We are more intelligent, not more evolved. There is no "more evolved". We are no more evolved than an amoeba. Different, sure. Better? Only if you're into making qualitative assessments about humans, which doesn't work for me.


OK, I'm not going to go back and hunt through and look for this, maybe I really am getting this wrong but if there are intermediate forms/stages in evolution, and a certain, now-extinct, primate was a direct ancestor of humans, is it really 'out of bounds' to say that the surviving, better adapted, human being is more evolved? If we can't say that, I think it would be a great service to tell us just how we should describe this very important relationship in a discussion about evolution.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Originally Posted by JBI
You are assuming a morality on it, to try to disvalue the progressive element, ...


Well, this seemed off target or unclear to me, and you handled it well, I thought.


----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Originally Posted by JBI
...but even if we have gone toward something that is harmful, we have still progressed to it, the same way the bacteria have reformed themselves to combat against our previous methods of destroying them. The ants have progressed, the amoebas in the water have progressed - everything has. The chain of being is the construct that doesn't work, not the progressive process.

Here, I think your (the Atheist's) response is pretty accurate, as far as it goes. The bacteria didn't purposefully reform with the goal of combatting efforts to destroy them--and this is an important point. Kudos, I know it's easy to get the wording wrong about this, even if one is perfectly aware that evolution is not about goals. In retrospect, it's easy to look back and see all of the competition going on, and give the creatures too much credit.

However, I don't think your example of 'extinct species' proves the point. It proves that those particular species didn't take on mutations that would have saved them from extinction, that's all, leaving aside whether or not they had been purposely trying (and failing) to take on those mutations/changes and evolve to some goal or another.

Also, just as important, it appears that the main point that JBI is maybe making in this quote is to reassert a lack of intermediate forms. Anyhow, I think the bit at the end about the "chain of being" is his main thrust. Anyhow, you don't address this here (because you got side-tracked, maybe?) so it might have been good to restrict the size of your quote to the mistake that you decided to address.

You actually did address the intermediate forms issue a few posts back, however, and you addressed it well, but chose to end your argument with the unfortunate, "Not having all the data is a strength, not a weakness." I think it would have maybe been more accurate to say that not having all of the data was "understandable" or "no surprise", instead of "a strength."
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Atheist, you make great points, are passionate about your position, and just the sort of voice that makes things fun sometimes. But, sometimes, if something looks a little wrong, an ounce of re-reading and an effort at empathy can maybe help bring a focus to the areas of misunderstanding, and make it easier on those who have maybe misunderstood something. And sometimes, with just a little bit of generous reading, the content and context supporting a perceived error might be found to exist somewhere other than in what's actually been written.

[Nightshade]

Ok people, I bet more than half of you can already guess what I am going to say :
BREATHE, :D
and take a step back. Don't get mad or offended, reassess and if you can't help but get very seriously annoyed then you need to consider whether it is really worth even coming to look at the thread? I can't see how it matters what other people think either way myself but I know that some people do so all I can say is breathe and let it go. Its far healthier than getting mad.
:D

I personally don't see how it matters how we've come to be in this point of History, but what matters is what we do with our lives when we have them.




If you imagine a tree, which is alive but has no brain, and a snail, which is alive and does have a rudimentary brain, there isn't much difference in "intelligence".
I can't resist pointing out that we have no measure of intelligence other than our own and just because we can't perceive intelligence there doesn't me there isn't any. Kind of like did you know monkeys speak in dialects and regional accents? There was a study done a few years a go that discovered this, it makes a good nature-nurture debate point.


Nope, you've completely misunderstood.

Coelacanths are almost totally unchanged after ~350,000,000 years and many insect appear to be identical to hundreds of millions of years ago. Things only change if a mutation is beneficial, and some forms of life are fine as they are. Ferns are much the same after half a billion years.


umm this seems to be a point in favour of Intelligent design. Surly evolution wold just continue because mutations do happen anyway, and surely you would find offshoots as well? A bit like an oven and a cake.
In the beginning it takes a fair bit of tweaking to get the conditions right for optimum baking, then its all hands go and everything is going smoothly the cake is both rising ad setting and its all good. But take it out too soon and it is underdone, but if its left in too long, it spoils. so what makes evolution stop when something is 'just fine'. What turns the oven off?



You seem to be stuck on the incorrect idea that evolution is goal-based. That it isn't is entirely demonstrable by looking at species which have become extinct, thereby refuting your notion of constant improvement. It just doesn't work the way you seem to have in mind.


Ok how about you explain goal based evolution and this other evolution you are talking about and the difference between the two because I am well and truly confused now. :confused:
And do me a favour and keep it fairly simple and straight forwards so I can follow?
:D

[NikolaiI]

To those who don't believe in evolution, it is pretty simple, I would say. If you just think about it in terms of change, you can see how it's necessary. The nature of everything in the universe is change. How could a species, be it a plant, or animal, or insect, remain unchanged through millenia? Everything is in constant change, even if the change is very gradual.

And, evolution is quite observable. Fruit flies, deprived of light, lose their ability to see within a short number of generations.


I missed quite a lot in this discussion - I can't see what JBI and Atheist are arguing about, for one - but what is interesting to me is what is the future of evolution. Sri Aurobindo wrote a wonderful chapter or essay in one of his books about evolution. Actually the main of his work was about humans gradually evolving into the next step. He said, would a primative ape, living in his tree, be able to comprehend that there would one day be a creature on the earth who could shape metal, make cities and civilizations, cross the oceans and fly through the air, change his outer and inner environment, and make laws according to reason? And if he could grasp this, could he understand that such a creature would eventually come from what he was then? A pretty safe assumption is no. And it's fairly obvious in this light, that there is the possibility of future evolution. Of a higher humanity, as far ahead of us in terms of evolution as we are from our ancestor.


Oh, and as for most evolved, we are not the most evolved. One thing I heard was... Whales can withstand incredible pressures in the ocean... they are highly evolved... because they have been in their environment for, I don't know the exact numbers, but quite a lot longer than humans have been on land.

[andave_ya]

Not arguing either way but how, does that work. God is Omnipotent and a maker, even with evolutionary theory Humans didn't create themselves, they are a product of a greater force, perhaps random chance perhaps evolution itself. if evolution creates any 'false gods' then as I see it it follows it would be Nature, Evolution itself, random chance or Chaos that becomes the controlling feature and thus by that argument God.

Sorry Night. What I meant was, evolution holds that we came from "primordial ooze," and are not the creation of an omnipotent Designer. With that as our background, there is no higher authority but the highest intelligence there is - which is humankind. The reason I don't think that God created, ah, ooze then let evolution take over is because there's nothing in the Bible that says He did, and it isn't logical to assume, either. Because if He did there would be death before sin.


Well, if you check out strings of protein and a single-celled life form, the onylrecognisable difference is that the cell has a cellulose wall around it. That's why viruses are a great example - some are enclosed in cellulose, some aren't.

And yet the cellulose wall is there to make sure that nothing...untoward enters the cell and kills/mutilates it, or that it doesn't expand and burst it, therefore killing it.


If you imagine a tree, which is alive but has no brain, and a snail, which is alive and does have a rudimentary brain, there isn't much difference in "intelligence". A tree loses its leaves in winter because different receptors notice the changing temperature and the DNA is coded for leaves to fall off. A snail is reacting the same way to its environment, but through a different system.

...and so, a human gets cold, realizes it's cold outside, and decides to put some clothes on to keep warm? is that too just, "reacting to its environment?"


The evolution of animalian intelligence is mirrored by computers, but in a much shorter time span, obviously. Early computers were incredibly slow and ineffectual compared to the present day. I recall seeing one 40 years ago which took up a whole room, but took 2.5 hours to do a payroll I can now do in about .1 of a second on my laptop.

So computers just up and decided to evolve into a better species and the old ones died out because of survival of the fittest? It had nothing to do with, excuse me, designers of greater intelligence? So I actually could put all the pieces of a Boeing 747 in a big field, come back in a million years, and see the pieces begin melting together in the right way?


That's nothing to do with evolution at all - beyond evolving the ability to make those decisions. All that does is prove that morality isn't hard-wired. Some people have no morals.

Still doesn't answer my question. Why is there such a range? If we keep in mind the whole "survival of the fittest" idea as evolutionists would have us do, how come people have evolved ideas like generosity? integrity? honesty? why aren't we all sleazy pathetic little liars who'll do anything to be ahead? Isn't that what we should have evolved into?


As to the dominant ones killing all the submissives, I don't know whether you follow the news pages at all, but it's still happening. Check out Rwanda for selfish genes at work. Another excellent example I have locally is the Moriori - a tribe which were exterminated by other tribes. And as to Hitler, he had a pretty good go at wiping several races out.

Why isn't it universal? Shouldn't it be?


All you need to do is ask...

In fact, the links already given cover an enormous amount of transitional species. Archaeopteryx is a favourite as the transition between dinosaurs and birds, but if you've missed data on transitional species, you haven't been looking hard enough.

Seek and you will find!

And I am to ignore the furious debate raging over each and every single one of these "transitional creatures?"

Duly sought after, and still not found, but then, human nature being so flawed as it is...


Not having all the data is a strength, not a weakness.

:lol: Oh I see.


Alas, if you have a look at actual scientific journals, the theory of evolution is embraced by all scientists. The only deniers are a small clique of creationists, and the classic example of that "science" is where Michael Behe had to admit in court, under oath, that creationist science isn't science at all.

Thank you for speaking for all of us (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp)


Nothing is higher or lower than anything else in evolution. We might be smarter than insects, but they have some pretty cool systems which work - bees & ants, for example. Most insects can cope with temperature extremes and after having survived for ~350 million years, I don't see them dying out anytime soon.

So despite being smash-able, they're the "fittest?"


Evolution isn't a result of species interbreeding - although there could be a case that it has happened in the past. The point was that similar species, which could breed - tigers & lions, for instance, and which have bred in captivity - just don't do it.

Why not? Why don't they do it?


No it doesn't, as leading theologians from the pope to the Archbishop of Canterbury will quickly disabuse you of. They both accept evolution as factual and it makes no difference to their faith at all.

But my authority is neither the pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury. They may believe as they please, although it is a sorry testimony to them. My authority comes from the Bible, and through the Bible, my parents and pastors. And only insofar as they do not tell me to do something that goes against the Bible.




We are more intelligent, not more evolved. There is no "more evolved". We are no more evolved than an amoeba. Different, sure. Better? Only if you're into making qualitative assessments about humans, which doesn't work for me.

We're not more evolved than an amoeba? I won't insult you by listing the differences...


Don't get mad or offended, reassess and if you can't help but get very seriously annoyed then you need to consider whether it is really worth even coming to look at the thread?

Actually, I'm planning to stop posting as soon as I get The Atheist's reply. I must exhude youthful naivete, the way people try to pull wool over my eyes.


Ok how about you explain goal based evolution and this other evolution you are talking about and the difference between the two because I am well and truly confused now. :confused:
And do me a favour and keep it fairly simple and straight forwards so I can follow?
:D

ditto, please.

[JCamilo]

Sorry Night. What I meant was, evolution holds that we came from "primordial ooze," and are not the creation of an omnipotent Designer. With that as our background, there is no higher authority but the highest intelligence there is - which is humankind. The reason I don't think that God created, ah, ooze then let evolution take over is because there's nothing in the Bible that says He did, and it isn't logical to assume, either. Because if He did there would be death before sin.

Evolution does not say anything about primordial ooze. Evolution is something that happens with living organisms, so, before the first living organism, you do not talk about evolution.


Still doesn't answer my question. Why is there such a range? If we keep in mind the whole "survival of the fittest" idea as evolutionists would have us do, how come people have evolved ideas like generosity? integrity? honesty? why aren't we all sleazy pathetic little liars who'll do anything to be ahead? Isn't that what we should have evolved into?

That is simple minded to say at least, survival of the fittest is not the theory of evolution, it only a slogan used in the debates trying to resume it. Anyways, not only humans are able to show what we can generosity and obviously, honesty and integrity are related to human societies and not a biological event.


So despite being smash-able, they're the "fittest?"

Obviously, anything is only fit to a specific task. For example, Pele would not be fit to play basketball but he was for Soccer. A bug small size allow him to occupy spaces where pretadors have more difficulty to reach, where he can find food and being smash-able, I am sure a Whale consider us very smash-able too.



Why not? Why don't they do it?

They do it. But the chance of survival of the result of a couple even between close specieis is reduced. Plus, many of those offsprings that manage to be an addult have problems because of this, genetic, and generate no offspring. Plus, why a tiger and a lion do not breed (considering how rare is one to find another outside a zoo) is because they smell different, have different color, do different noises and "enjoy" different sexual activities. Just like, most of the humans, are aware that a chimp is different from a woman. But hey, some dont... such is life.



But my authority is neither the pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury. They may believe as they please, although it is a sorry testimony to them. My authority comes from the Bible, and through the Bible, my parents and pastors. And only insofar as they do not tell me to do something that goes against the Bible.

Out of offense and just due to curiosity... Do you eat pig? And do not work at saturdays or sundays? How many wives do you plan to have? And do you believe the stonning to death some a woman because an adultery is fair play?


We're not more evolved than an amoeba? I won't insult you by listing the differences...

No, we are not. Do not insult anyone listing the differences, because evolution is the existence of such differences, which are not a ranking of the "The Dearest of Mother Nature".
It is not about being better, so any attempt to list differents to prove our mighty power over amoebas is not getting the point and just a bit ridiculous.

[AimusSage]

This thread is amazing! Who wants a Darwin award?

[The Atheist]

Take it easy Atheist! A little more empathy might help in the recruitment.

Well, it's been going ok for the past 20 years. Empathy's more for HR practitioners than recruiters - recruiters are just high-class pimps.

:D


I don't see how JBI made the mistake you're suggesting.

Maybe I read it wrong, but he'll no doubt let me know if so.


Is being at the top of the food chain related to evolution?

Nope. Ask a t rex. They were at the top of the food chain for a very long time.


OK, I'm not going to go back and hunt through and look for this, maybe I really am getting this wrong but if there are intermediate forms/stages in evolution, and a certain, now-extinct, primate was a direct ancestor of humans, is it really 'out of bounds' to say that the surviving, better adapted, human being is more evolved? If we can't say that, I think it would be a great service to tell us just how we should describe this very important relationship in a discussion about evolution.

This is the nub of the issue, and it is a difficult concept, because we're looking at it from a skewed preception - human - and at one particular instance in a billions-of-years process.

You have to look beyond time and see evolution as a process which sometimes happens and which sometimes does not. As I've tried to point out, having more talent/ability/limbs/brains than another species confers no special rights or place on that species.

The expression "more evolved" doesn't exist, because it doesn't describe anything.


However, I don't think your example of 'extinct species' proves the point. It proves that those particular species didn't take on mutations that would have saved them from extinction, that's all, leaving aside whether or not they had been purposely trying (and failing) to take on those mutations/changes and evolve to some goal or another.

You're getting this one wrong as well, or maybe just putting it wrong, because mutations don't happen to save species from extinction - they just happen. A mutation for less fur may happen at the same time as a period of global cooling.

The way you've written it, it seems to indicate that the genes have some idea of what challenges they're facing, which they don't, of course.


Also, just as important, it appears that the main point that JBI is maybe making in this quote is to reassert a lack of intermediate forms.

We agree that there's plenty of evidence, so that's good.


You actually did address the intermediate forms issue a few posts back, however, and you addressed it well, but chose to end your argument with the unfortunate, "Not having all the data is a strength, not a weakness." I think it would have maybe been more accurate to say that not having all of the data was "understandable" or "no surprise", instead of "a strength."

I see what you're saying, but I'll stick with strength, for the following reasons:

The theory is still fluid enough to be fine-tuned within new evidence.

It proves that the theory is factual, because the gaps are covered by predictions, which have so far turned out to be correct when later fossil evidence is found.

It shows the rigour of the hard science involved.

It protects against claims of bias or fabrication by scientists.

It would be a lot easier in some ways if we could line all the fossils up, but challenges are good!


I can't resist pointing out that we have no measure of intelligence other than our own and just because we can't perceive intelligence there doesn't me there isn't any.

I won't argue that intelligence exists, but whether it's of value is highly arguable.


umm this seems to be a point in favour of Intelligent design. Surly evolution wold just continue because mutations do happen anyway, and surely you would find offshoots as well? A bit like an oven and a cake.

Surly evolution? Is that how men become grumpy old farts?

:D

Almost all "offshoots" die because the mutation isn't advantageous. Again, the miniscule fraction of animals which end up being fossilised means that there is no fossil record of these.

On the other hand, offshoots are as common as primordial soup - humans, gorillas, monkeys and chimpanzees are all offshoots of a common ancestor. One we haven't yet discovered, although the German fossil last week is promising.


In the beginning it takes a fair bit of tweaking to get the conditions right for optimum baking, then its all hands go and everything is going smoothly the cake is both rising ad setting and its all good. But take it out too soon and it is underdone, but if its left in too long, it spoils. so what makes evolution stop when something is 'just fine'. What turns the oven off?

There is no cook, no mixture, no timing, no "done". Mutations happen; successful ones may become a new species, the others die.

Evolution stops when the sun explodes or there is no life left on earth.

You seem to be looking at it from the wrong angle.


Ok how about you explain goal based evolution and this other evolution you are talking about and the difference between the two because I am well and truly confused now. :confused:
And do me a favour and keep it fairly simple and straight forwards so I can follow?
:D

Well, there is no difference, because there is no such thing as goal-based evolution.

Evolution happens. It either works out or doesn't.


And yet the cellulose wall is there to make sure that nothing...untoward enters the cell and kills/mutilates it, or that it doesn't expand and burst it, therefore killing it.

Nope.

The cellulose is there because those cells are more successful than non-encased ones, although if you've ever had norovirus or rotavirus, you'd probably agree than non-encased cells have plenty of power and aren't scared of anything.


...and so, a human gets cold, realizes it's cold outside, and decides to put some clothes on to keep warm? is that too just, "reacting to its environment?"

Absolutely, but excellent example, because it allows me to bring in cats, birds and other animals which grow or shed hair & feathers in reaction to the weather changes. Birds don't decide to get their winter feathers in, it just happens automatically from coding in the DNA.


So computers just up and decided to evolve into a better species and the old ones died out because of survival of the fittest? It had nothing to do with, excuse me, designers of greater intelligence? So I actually could put all the pieces of a Boeing 747 in a big field, come back in a million years, and see the pieces begin melting together in the right way?

:lol:

Apologies, I confess that I put that one in there to see if it drew out the old creationist canard.

It did.

There is a difference between organic and inorganic molecules and how they behave. If we constructed Boeing 747s out of organic molecules, it might well grow back together!


Still doesn't answer my question. Why is there such a range? If we keep in mind the whole "survival of the fittest" idea as evolutionists would have us do, how come people have evolved ideas like generosity? integrity? honesty? why aren't we all sleazy pathetic little liars who'll do anything to be ahead? Isn't that what we should have evolved into?

As I look around me, that appears to be the case!

If no other animals had social groups, you'd have a point, but worker bees don't ask the queen whether they were designed to the job, or whether it's just in the genes. Lions, gorillas, elephants, dolphins.... most mammals have distinct social structure and within those structures, you can see all the types of behaviour you've described.



Why isn't it universal? Shouldn't it be?

Nope - if traits were universal, there wouldn't be worker bees. We also still have no idea on what the split of personality type is regarding nature/nurture, so it's not too surprising we can't point to certain genes just yet.


And I am to ignore the furious debate raging over each and every single one of these "transitional creatures?"

No! You should enjoy and embrace it.

Again, it shows the rigour of the science - you don't get a free pass with sceintific discoveries, you have to prove it, then prove it again.

The trick is to look for actual scientific argument and avoid the cries of deniers who think it's all a big hoax anyway. If you stick to the former, you'll find that the disagreements aren't usually about whether a species is a transitional one or not, it's whether it's the particular one claimed. Science, like any human endeavour, is susceptible to hubris, and no scientist wants to let a colleague take glory he'd reserved for himself.


Duly sought after, and still not found, but then, human nature being so flawed as it is...

I'd really like you to try to get this one part into perspective.

At present, human discovery has led to several hundred fossils of butterlies being recovered. That's several hundred, in the whole ~300,000,000 year history of butterfies.

How many butterflies do you reckon have lived in all that time?

I can't even begin to think of how big a number it is, yet we have a lousy 300 say. Yet, from those 300, we're trying to make information fit the billions of butterflies alive today, plus, the trillions and trillions that have ever lived.

Is it really that surprising that we have so little evidence of what actually happened along the way?

Given the little evidence we do have, I'm constantly awed by the brains which manage to connect the few dots.

Evolution is like doing a puzzle of the Mona Lisa in one-pixel pieces. Yet, we're finding, as time goes on and discoveries are made, that almost all of the pieces are in the right place.


:lol: Oh I see.

I'm hoping my rationale for that, because it really is.

Take homeopathy as a counter example. Its total weakness is its inflexibility. To make a 30C solution work, one has to do it to a formula which would make a widow weep, so no respectable scientist can be bother with failing to replicate the results they don't get. Accordingly, homeopathy flourishes in no scientific minds beyond its use as a placebo.

Evolution, on the other hand, is an open book; many an amateur fossil-hunter has made an earth-shattering discovery. One woman in NZ found a fossilised tooth in a stream-bed a few years back. Turns out she'd found the first incontrovertible evidence that large carnivores existed on our land mass, with a big t rex-looking beatie of 30' length. That tooth is available to study and be debunked in a way that pseudoscience and metaphysics can only dream about.


Thank you for speaking for all of us (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp)

I wasn't speaking to them particularly, but why they or their supporters are surprised that some people object to them blatantly lying in an educational sense is surprising, given that they self-admit to fabrication of evidence.


So despite being smash-able, they're the "fittest?"

It depends on the environment. A lucky combination of oxygen, atmosphere and gravity have let us assume the beautiful forms we occupy. A methane-breathing species on a huge planet with a gravitational pull 10X that of earth is likely to be one flat, ugly sucker.

Insects have done pretty well in coping with the earth's changing faces over hundreds of millions of years, so I expect them to be able to cope in whatever the future holds.


Why not? Why don't they do it?

Same reason plants don't. Inter-species sex usually results in sterile offspring. I have a thoroughbred mule-breeding establishment for sale if you don't believe that one!

:D


We're not more evolved than an amoeba? I won't insult you by listing the differences...

You don't need to list differences, because they're irrelevant.

We're more intelligent and better-looking than amoabae, but we are not "more evolved". We're both alive today. You could make an argument that we're more evolved than dinosaurs since they died out, but in terms of species alive today, no one is "more evolved" than another.


ditto, please.

Are we getting there?

[andave_ya]

Oh quite. Well, all this thread has done for me is raise even more questions about evolution and therefore cement creationism. Sorry.

On my final note, I have to say I find evolution rather insulting. My faith has me as the child of the King, while evolution has me as the child of an ape. Or sludge.

Enjoy the rest of the discussion.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Flowering plants appeared after mammals, does that make them "higher" than mammals?

Of course it doesn't. That's just a straw man argument, as I'm sure you know.

Even so, the date of the origin of angiosperms is unclear, and may be earlier than previously thought (i.e. in the late to middle Jurassic, rather than in the Cretaceous.


Evolution does not really cover the origem of life, altough the natural laws must be the same, affecting the process. Obviously, no theory about the origem is today satisfactory like Natural Selection is.

This thread has gotten contentious and somewhat off topic, but Camilo has hit the nail on the head.

Darwin never tried to answer the question, "Where did life come from?" Other scientists have addressed that question (e.g.Oparin). Darwin's theory of evolution is simple but profound, involving the following ideas: 1) There is variability in the characteristics of living things; 2) Living things produce offspring that manifest the physical characteristics of their progenitors; Living things produce offspring that manifest the physical characteristics of their progenitors; 3) There is a struggle for survival of living things that involves competition for envirnomentally determined reasources (food, mates, etc.); and, 4) "Success" in this struggle for survival is determined by the ability of an organism to reproduce offspring that themselves survive to reproduce. The whole process is called "Natural Selection." It is like the "Artificial Selection" of plant or animal breeders, but the selector is the natural environment rather that, say, a breeder of Airedales...

It's really as simple as that. Simple, but a profound scientific insight. BTW, the idea of evolution by natural selection doesn't have to be limited to "living things." There are, for example, computer programs, like The Game of Life, that allow self-replicating programs to "evolve" under various "survival" constraints.:yawnb:

[The Atheist]

Of course it doesn't. That's just a straw man argument, as I'm sure you know.

Absolutely!


Even so, the date of the origin of angiosperms is unclear, and may be earlier than previously thought (i.e. in the late to middle Jurassic, rather than in the Cretaceous.

Quite right. I've tried to make it clear that all numbers are totally approximate. When you're talking a margin of error of millions of years, I wouldn't plan on celebrating any birthdays too soon!

[Nick Capozzoli]

The expression "more evolved" doesn't exist, because it doesn't describe anything.

Maybe "more evolved" means that the organism has been subject to natural selection for a longer time...

I won't argue that intelligence exists, but whether it's of value is highly arguable.

Intelligence is just a characteristic subject to natural selection...
Evolution happens. It either works out or doesn't.

It always "works"... but the organism either survives and reproduces or it dosen't...

I responded to some points in your post.

[The Atheist]

I responded to some points in your post.

Damn n00bs!

:D

Maybe "more evolved" means that the organism has been subject to natural selection for a longer time...

That would make humans the lest evolved animal on the planet as we're just about the most recently-developed species.

I just think there's a danger using the term in any way, because it only ends up being misleading, and worse, it encourages the idea of goal-based evolution.

It always "works"... but the organism either survives and reproduces or it dosen't...

That's why I specified "works out". Indeed, evolution "works" every time - just that some of the evolved forms end up being failures.

[billl]

just for the record, i'll just give a rundown on the portion of his recent post that relates to my quotes. Just as background, I have not been trying to attack evolution, I'm a big fan. I am focussed on cases where I just have seen plenty of interesting points and opportunities for clarification and education missed, due to the style of discussion.

He quotes me 7 times, and here are my comments on his comments.

1) This is fine, I don't understand it, but it just looks like joking.

2) I think 'maybe' is generous.

3) I didn't need the answer, and didn't need the 'nope'. Here, the comment is throwing an easy 'nope' at a hypothetical question, and completely ignoring the substance of the criticism.

4) Another nice explanation about the pretty basic idea that evolution proceeds via random mutation over very long periods of time, with some mutations being beneficial and thus leading to change in the species. The phrase 'more evolved' is a common one (and a mistake, when moving beyond lay speech and into a more serious discussion of evolution--point taken AGAIN!), but in this case it is VERY clear in the original post by JBI that he was referring to a species that comes into existence later in a particular chain of development (specifically, he was talking about humans in relation to our primate ancestor species). It would have been so much better (and would still) if another phrase or term could have been suggested to describe this relationship. "Better adapted" maybe? Something that reflects the improved fitness that has resulted from evolution.

5) theAtheist suggests something that isn't in the original post. I do not suggest that species go extinct in the light of challenges that they know they are facing. The mutations are random, of course. But extinct species are not evidence of the randomness, just evidence that sufficiently beneficial mutations didn't occur. The question of "random or not?" is left aside in the extinct species argument (it could have--hypothetically!--been the case that the 'striving' species failed to mutate/change appropriately, and therefore became extinct). (By the way, I DO DO DO understand that the mutations are random. Does that help?)
Here's the fallacy:
i) A-->B
ii) B
iii) therefore, A.
where A='mutations are random' and B='some species go extinct'.
If anyone is tired of seeing so much typing about the same point again and again, just look at the quote and comment, and you'll see why I feel the same. theAtheist had originally suggested that extinct species are a refutation of constant improvement (e.g. non-random mutation).

6) I don't understand this. I think it might be an oblique reference to the suggestion that an unsurprising lack of evidence for transitional species strengthens the case for evolution (7), but maybe it's something else.

7) I like this, because it expands on the subtlety you were reaching for when you chose the extremely controversial :) 'strength'.



Anyhow, I think one thing that's becoming clear is that there's a need for more clarity. Also, a bit of patience in diagnosing where misunderstandings lie, less of a reflex for the easy score, and an appreciation of an argument beyond pesky misunderstandings that might be staining its surface. Or we'll just keep getting the same stumbles, ambushes, and evasions, as the real questions and answers disappear in the distance of quotes about quotes about quotes.

[AimusSage]

This thread reminded me of a film called idiocracy In this film dumb people have way more children than intelligent people. This scenario with dumb people breeding excessively and intelligent people dying out eventually leads to a society that borders on the brink of a total breakdown where people are generally stupid. I found this a splendid example of evolution, where a mutation didn't quite work out for the species. The film doesn't let it go that far, and an average Joe from the present goes and saves the future. In this scenario, evolution didn't quite work out for humans, as they were on the brink of extinction in the scenario, it is only thanks to the rules of Hollywood film making that the scenario had a specific plot that resolved the issue and humanity had a second chance to continue on their evolutionary path to the next extinction.

The Atheist I agree with you. If in whatever way there ever was truth in the scenario described above, you know what to do.

Muhahaha! It has Electrolytes....

[The Atheist]

just for the record, i'll just give a rundown on the portion of his recent post that relates to my quotes. Just as background, I have not been trying to attack evolution, I'm a big fan. I am focussed on cases where I just have seen plenty of interesting points and opportunities for clarification and education missed, due to the style of discussion.

It would be very helpful if you could quote the bits you're responding to, but I'll do my best:


He quotes me 7 times, and here are my comments on his comments.

1) This is fine, I don't understand it, but it just looks like joking.

Not entirely joking - I have one my best friends call me a pimp all the time. A recruiter, or head-hunter, is just finding the person most likely to result in a fee, so the analogy is reasonably apt. An HR practitioner will be more likely to be a mediator type who is indeed empathic. RTecruiters do faux empathy, but only where there's a dollar in it. Think used car salesman selling people to the highest bidder - that's my industry.

:lol:


2) I think 'maybe' is generous.

Hell, I'm a generous bloke.


3) I didn't need the answer, and didn't need the 'nope'. Here, the comment is throwing an easy 'nope' at a hypothetical question, and completely ignoring the substance of the criticism.

I was trying to show that I don't see any substance in the comment. I don't how else to say there is no "more evolved".


4) Another nice explanation about the pretty basic idea that evolution proceeds via random mutation over very long periods of time, with some mutations being beneficial and thus leading to change in the species. The phrase 'more evolved' is a common one (and a mistake, when moving beyond lay speech and into a more serious discussion of evolution--point taken AGAIN!), but in this case it is VERY clear in the original post by JBI that he was referring to a species that comes into existence later in a particular chain of development (specifically, he was talking about humans in relation to our primate ancestor species). It would have been so much better (and would still) if another phrase or term could have been suggested to describe this relationship. "Better adapted" maybe? Something that reflects the improved fitness that has resulted from evolution.

I don't see better adapted working either, because it requires a qualitative assessment on no data. Who's better adapted today might well change tomorrow.

It all comes back to valuing one form of life over another from an evolutionary perspective, which I don't believe can be done. Obviously, I value human life more than trees and I value my kids' lives above those of others, but they're subjective analyses which have no place in science.


... theAtheist had originally suggested that extinct species are a refutation of constant improvement (e.g. non-random mutation).

Bingo.


6) I don't understand this. I think it might be an oblique reference to the suggestion that an unsurprising lack of transitional species strengthens the case for evolution (7), but maybe it's something else.

Just reiterating that evidence of transitional species exists. Why there's so little is explained elsewhere.


7) I like this, because it expands on the subtlety you were reaching for when you chose the extremely controversial :) 'strength'.

Goodo!


Anyhow, I think one thing that's becoming clear is that there's a need for more clarity. Also, a bit of patience in diagnosing where misunderstandings lie, less of a reflex for the easy score, and an appreciation of an argument beyond pesky misunderstandings that might be staining its surface.

I'm not going for scores - it's just my style, which can take some getting used to.


This thread reminded me of a film called idiocracy In this film dumb people have way more children than intelligent people. This scenario with dumb people breeding excessively and intelligent people dying out eventually leads to a society that borders on the brink of a total breakdown where people are generally stupid.

I'm not so sure that's fiction!

I've always liked Carl Sagan's take on the 20th century and beyond:


We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.


The Atheist I agree with you. If in whatever way there ever was truth in the scenario described above, you know what to do.

;)

[billl]

Bingo.



wow. you did it again. some of these would take a little digging to see the evasion, but people wouldn't have to dig far to see that one.

[JBI]

I'm not even going to respond - this tedious form of breaking things up into individual, often elided sentences is terrible - not to mention the fact that things are responded too in much the same fashion. Until a coherent argument can be formed in paragraphs, quite simply any form of dialog cannot exist. you can't quote quotes here, so the text block ultimately becomes too layered to respond, unless people write in paragraphs, which facilitate responses and thinking, rather than broken up snippets of deliberate context-manipulation.

[NikolaiI]

I dunno. I like to keep things simple. Evolution is quite simply, change. The most fundamental law of everything in the universe is change. That law holds true as it is an absolute law. Evolution logically follows, since a species can't remain eternally unchanging, as that would break the absolute law that all is change. Simple, right?

By the by, I don't have the slightest clue what JBI and Atheist could be arguing about! :lol:


Sorry Night. What I meant was, evolution holds that we came from "primordial ooze," and are not the creation of an omnipotent Designer. With that as our background, there is no higher authority but the highest intelligence there is - which is humankind. The reason I don't think that God created, ah, ooze then let evolution take over is because there's nothing in the Bible that says He did, and it isn't logical to assume, either. Because if He did there would be death before sin.

Dear Andave, evolution is not contrary to God! Not at all!

Just consider - if we are evolved from apes - what is the future evolutionary step? It is a being as more greatly advanced than we are, as we are than animals. There are different steps in the evolution of consciousness; matter (the physical), subtle, mental, and spiritual, or supramental. Physical science knows nothing of the supramental, and I daresay that certain members would disagree with me about this. I believe in evolution, but I also believe that there is a divine life which is possible to work towards and manifest. Divine consciousness is something we do not have much association with in normal, daily life. It is as far beyond us as crossing the oceans, building cities, civilizations, and empires; with laws, reason, morals, mathematics, advanced language, and art - as all of these are - to the animals.

From India there have been more than several thinkers who believed that evolution was being guided by the divine, or being guided toward a divine life. Human life is not the highest intelligence. We are but a part of the universe, which is much greater than us. We are a part of the whole. Evolution simply means change. Humans are not the highest step in evolution, therefore not the highest intelligence. The highest intelligence is God. You may agree with this, and I may agree with you if you hold this. But I am not Christian, or any other religion. All religions are valid paths. But religion is not the goal, it is only part of the path.

[ShoutGrace]

billl,

If I may be so bold ... Please do consider using the quote function provided in the software that this site utilizes more often. There may be a thread somewhere which explains this function, but briefly it is something like this:


Text included here

In the above example, simply remove the "s" from the initial word "quotes," and you will end up with the following:


Text included here

I think that this would greatly increase the clarity of your posts, the quality of your exchanges, and comprehension by both your interlocutors and idle readers.

I bring it up only because I think that these kinds of threads are important, and that exchange and discussion on this issue is badly needed here and elsewhere.


I'm not even going to respond - this tedious form of breaking things up into individual, often elided sentences is terrible - not to mention the fact that things are responded too in much the same fashion. Until a coherent argument can be formed in paragraphs, quite simply any form of dialog cannot exist. you can't quote quotes here, so the text block ultimately becomes too layered to respond, unless people write in paragraphs, which facilitate responses and thinking, rather than broken up snippets of deliberate context-manipulation.

JBI, I for one would appreciate your continued participation, for the same reasons mentioned above.

As an aside, I think that you can quote quotes here:



"This is the case." "I quite disagree."

{PersonBeta responds here}

[The Atheist]

wow. you did it again. some of these would take a little digging to see the evasion, but people wouldn't have to dig far to see that one.

I don't get this at all - I was agreeing with how you saw what I said.

If I've read you wrong, I'm happy to respond.

[backline]

Y'know guys,
I remember the primordial ooze.

It was icky.

OK seriously, there's something multiplicative about how life explodes on this planet, given the bacteria that blew in maybe on space dust and found purchase in tide pools.

Natural Selection depends on this flourishing of life forms over a very long time scale.

The time scale was Darwin's last hurdle. His thought was formulated (and he was not the first to notice) but could not figure out how there was enough time for everything to occur given the mindset of his age.

Once it became accepted (by Naturalists observing shells in the limestone of the cliffs of Dover) that what the church said about the lifespan thus far of planet earth being 6,000 years old was demonstrably wrong ("T'ain't so!" said they), the final piece fell into place and he could publish (pressure from Wallace notwithstanding) without fear that he had missed something that would result in a fatale flaw once the examination began of his thesis.

[billl]

A brief search for evidence for random mutation's key role in evolution led me to discover this web page from a website called "Evolution 101" provided by UC-Berkeley.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

The article mentions that there is no unambiguous evidence of NON-random mutation (no surprise there). Further, the final paragraph points to research indicating that mutations that are beneficial in a particular environment can be present in the organism even before the organism is exposed to the particular environment. This seems like very strong evidence that the mutations are not a purposeful response to the environment.

It immediately reminded me of how there has turned out to be a certain segment of people who are immune to the AIDS virus. It seems extremely unlikely that this particular immunity in these individuals results from purposeful genetic mutation in the mere decades since the arrival of AIDS. The gene is undoubtedly present in many individuals who have never been exposed to the AIDS virus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNFORTUNATELY, my curiosity in this AIDS-resistance led me to this article, which points out that beneficient mutations pre-existing in AIDS-immune individuals are probably the result of a resistance to some previously-existing form of smallpox.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198

This analysis would seem to cast doubt on the (impressive to me, just moments earlier) evidence provided at the UC-Berkeley website. (Perhaps the antibiotic resistance pre-existing in the bacteria discussed there was the result of a previous exposure to a similar anti-biotic...). I kept looking into this issue, until encountering scholarly articles that are way out of my league.

This leaves me wondering what the evidence for random mutation's key role in evolution actually is. Both websites mentioned above seem to go to certain lengths to point out that research in this area is continuing, and that a certain amount of debate continues, at least regarding certain points. So far, I haven't been able to find any conclusive evidence for the randomness of beneficial genetic mutation--only evidence of beneficial pre-existing mutations, which might have resulted from previous exposures to similar environmental challenges in the past.

At this point, it seems to me that the best 'evidence' for random mutation's key role in evolution would be an "Occam's Razor"-type argument: Random mutation can theoretically do the job, so why would we need to posit a mechanism for purposeful mutation? But there might be much better, more direct evidence out there somewhere. I'm just kind of worried that it exists only in scholarly articles.

Can someone help me find a simple, clear example of evidence for the randomness of beneficial mutations? (Something better than a mere assertion in a biology textbook). The last thing I expected was that it would be so difficult to find it.

[The Atheist]

OK seriously, there's something multiplicative about how life explodes on this planet, given the bacteria that blew in maybe on space dust and found purchase in tide pools.

I never liked this idea myself - compared to spontaneous abiogenbesis, the chances of a single-celled life form staying alive in space doesn't appeal.

Can't count it out, though.


Can someone help me find a simple, clear example of evidence for the randomness of beneficial mutations? (Something better than a mere assertion in a biology textbook). The last thing I expected was that it would be so difficult to find it.

It's probably going to be more difficult than that because it's a chicken/egg question which doesn't leave room for a simple answer.

[AimusSage]

It's probably going to be more difficult than that because it's a chicken/egg question which doesn't leave room for a simple answer.
Regarding the chicken and the egg , it's fairly simple. Wouldn't you say the egg came first, and a chicken crawled out of it? There are countless of species that lay eggs, and at one point some creature laid an egg and a chicken came out of it, rather than whatever the ancestor was. Proto-Chicken!

If you'll excuse me, I have an excellent idea for a tv-series featuring a normal proto-chicken couple whose life is turned upside down when their hatchling turns out to be a CHICKEN!

[backline]

Pursuant to space dust:


I never liked this idea myself - compared to spontaneous abiogenbesis, the chances of a single-celled life form staying alive in space doesn't appeal.

Can't count it out, though...


Fair enough. Not sure of the origin of the single celled life form myself.

But certainly once begun it had some tenacious qualities. Of course, we wouldn't know of the failures to thrive - anywhere.

I live on the Pacific Coast, not far from where Steinbeck wrote Canery Row, and was entralled by "Doc's" work - in real life (Naturalism I think applies here).
I have observed on the seemingly barren rock of the coast that life will sprout and grow -if not exactly thrive- anywhere it can find the most basic ingrediants (sun, air, soil, for most of the sparse looking vegetation).

It's magnificent at what it does: live!

I'll admit I sometimes feel like saying thanks to my ancestors, one celled or multi. I guess that's what we humans do (anthropomorphise).

[The Atheist]

There are countless of species that lay eggs, and at one point some creature laid an egg and a chicken came out of it, rather than whatever the ancestor was. Proto-Chicken!

Ah, but the mother had to donate the genes...


If you'll excuse me, I have an excellent idea for a tv-series featuring a normal proto-chicken couple whose life is turned upside down when their hatchling turns out to be a CHICKEN!

I could see Southpark going for that!


I'll admit I sometimes feel like saying thanks to my ancestors, one celled or multi. I guess that's what we humans do (anthropomorphise).

I always wonder whether animals animorphosise humans to each other. Sitting in their tree watching the tourists, "Wouldn't you like to have those fingernails picking your fleas?!"

[JCamilo]

Oh quite. Well, all this thread has done for me is raise even more questions about evolution and therefore cement creationism. Sorry.

On my final note, I have to say I find evolution rather insulting. My faith has me as the child of the King, while evolution has me as the child of an ape. Or sludge.

Enjoy the rest of the discussion.


I think you are mixing The Bible with Sleeping Beauty or Snow White, because in the Bible we are not descended of any King, but dirty, clay and mud. And You have to agree, even a sludge may be an improvement from dirty.

[Nick Capozzoli]

I never liked this idea myself - compared to spontaneous abiogenbesis, the chances of a single-celled life form staying alive in space doesn't appeal.

Yes, and furthermore it just pushes the question of how that life form evolved on another planet (or in space or anywhere else). So it's really a non-solution.

Nick


Pursuant to space dust:

Fair enough. Not sure of the origin of the single celled life form myself.

But certainly once begun it had some tenacious qualities. Of course, we wouldn't know of the failures to thrive - anywhere.

I live on the Pacific Coast, not far from where Steinbeck wrote Canery Row, and was entralled by "Doc's" work - in real life (Naturalism I think applies here).
I have observed on the seemingly barren rock of the coast that life will sprout and grow -if not exactly thrive- anywhere it can find the most basic ingrediants (sun, air, soil, for most of the sparse looking vegetation).

It's magnificent at what it does: live!

I'll admit I sometimes feel like saying thanks to my ancestors, one celled or multi. I guess that's what we humans do (anthropomorphise).

This is admittedly off topic, but since earlier posters treferred to primordial slime, I will quote this poem by Yvor Winters:

BY THE ROAD TO THE AIR BASE

The calloused grass lies hard
Against the cracking plain;
Life is a grayish stain;
The salt-marsh hems my yard.

Dry dykes rise hill on hill:
In sloughs of tidal slime
Shell-fish deposit lime,
Wild sea-fowl creep at will.

The highway, like a beach
Turns whiter, shadowy, dry:
Loud, pale against the sky,
The bombing planes hold speech.

Yet fruit grows on the trees:
Here scolars pause to speak;
Through gardens bare and Greek,
I hear my neighbor's bees.


Nick

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact it is very hard to say that evolutionary theories are flawless. It is not necessary that all scientific ideas are correct. Many of them are simply hypothetical and baseless.
Recently I have read an article in Newsweek about the Big Bang. The theory of the Big Bang is baseless in someways, only imagined or assumed ideas, and there could be no strand of truth in that theory.

Scientists at times theorize ideas but those ideas not necessarily can be correct, and some scientists just to earn immense popularity keep on publishing one article after another.

We should not take all theories propounded by scientists to be true or for granted. And to this end I feel all that is said about the theory of evolution may not be flawless.

Scientists too give dogmatic views at times.

[Mathor]

Regardless of whether the huge theories of Evolution are true, there are many proven examples of social evolution and cultural evolution everywhere. Its not as much a theory as it is just something that happens, and is measurable, on a small scale. However, the larger and grander "beginning of the world" theories are far from proven as of yet. Though the fact that there is at least a shred evidence compared to all non existent evidence of the contrary, it's easy to see why it's the most accepted theory.

[Nick Capozzoli]

I just finished reading Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker, and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in evolutionary theory. Dawkins can be irritating. He has a lot of biases, which anyone who is sensitive to language will be able to discern, despite his trying to project a tone of pure commonsense scientific objectivity, but I was really impressed with Chapter 6, Origins and miracles. This chapter presents the real intellectual challenge for those who wish to explain a "natural" (as opposed to "divine") origin of "life." This is something that Darwin himself never really addressed. The main problem is how a "replicating" mechanism could plausibly have evolved. The problem is that the current relpicative system (nucleic acid chains like RNA and DNA are apparently too complex to have arisen, in "one step" or de novo or as "intermediate" stable physical entities, however improbable... Dawkins doesn't deal with other things, like the hard to explain origin of complex flagellar "motor," in this book.

Dawkins however takes you to the point that you can imagine a non-creationist explanation of the origin of life. He cites the Scottish Chemist, Graham Cairns-Smith's "mineral-crystal" theory of the origin of proto-life replication, and that theory is quite compelling.

[blazeofglory]

In fact ideas we weave out of reading or hearing or inheriting are not necessarily realistic..
Darwin's many theories can be right but not necessarily all.

Of course the idea of Struggle for existence seems realistic but there are others he said or he assumed based on their scientific researches that man descended from animals could be right or wrong.

Today there were questions raised against the idea that whether really man has landed on the moon or not.

Let us not take every idea for granted and this is unscientific

[The Atheist]

Today there were questions raised against the idea that whether really man has landed on the moon or not.

Let us not take every idea for granted and this is unscientific

No, that's a really bad conspiracy fallacy which has stuck around for many years, solely due to many people not understanding scientific facts.

It's not a valid question.

[blazeofglory]

No, that's a really bad conspiracy fallacy which has stuck around for many years, solely due to many people not understanding scientific facts.

It's not a valid question.

If this is not a valid question, I have a series of valid questions. Can you answer?
Was the big bang true? Do you beleive in black holes? By the same token can we prove to all that Darwinism has no fallacy?

Atheist, we are in the vortex of confusion.


No, that's a really bad conspiracy fallacy which has stuck around for many years, solely due to many people not understanding scientific facts.

It's not a valid question.

If this is not a valid question, I have a series of valid questions. Can you answer?
Was the big bang true? Do you beleive in black holes? By the same token can we prove to all that Darwinism has no fallacy?

Atheist, we are in the vortex of confusion.

[PeterL]

In fact ideas we weave out of reading or hearing or inheriting are not necessarily realistic..
Darwin's many theories can be right but not necessarily all.

Darwin had one theory that I have heard evolution through natural selection. What other theories do you think he had?



Today there were questions raised against the idea that whether really man has landed on the moon or not.

Foolish people have been throwing that idea around since 1969. Men did walk on the Moon. That is fact.

[The Atheist]

If this is not a valid question, I have a series of valid questions. Can you answer?

Of course!


Was the big bang true?

We don't know.

Given that it happened ~15 billion years ago, I'm not too bothered that we can't model it for certain. It was a singular event in the universe's history, and if it happens again, it sure won't be in my lifetime. The CERN collider may give more insight.

The way I look at it simply that the big bang is the best theory we have right now, but regardless of what caused the universe, we live in it and it exists, so it's there to study in its present form at least.


Do you beleive in black holes?

I don't think "believe" is the right word, because it's certain they exist. What we know them is also quite indistinct because we can only study the effect they have on their surroundings since light can't escape from them. I believe we are starting to understand them, but an amount of matter exceeding that of the entire solar system the size of a golf ball takes some adjusting to.


By the same token can we prove to all that Darwinism has no fallacy?

Not at all. Darwin shouldn't be seen as the messiah of evolution/natural selection, but should be seen as the discoverer of natural selection whose theories have been changed and refined as we study things Darwin couldn't - DNA being the obvious example. Darwin made lots of mistakes, which is one reason why I laugh at creationists who deny evolution - as a science, it is unrecognisable from Darwin's days and while it isn't yet perfect, it's extremely accurate.


Atheist, we are in the vortex of confusion.

Nah; a picture of clarity.

:)

[blazeofglory]

No Atheist, there is no picture of clarity.

We know little about the universe we are in. Science knows very little. We study phenomena and cannot say what caused them. Of course science uses logic, methods of experiments and observations.

I too subscribe to the idea of science while studying observable phenomena and yet all phenomena are not observable.

Everything is not crystal clear. I do not beleive in mythological gods. I do not beleive in anecdotal descriptions as we come across in religious texts.

I cannot subscribe to the idea that there is God and who created everything we have.

Yet I cannot conclude at all. For I do not know natural phenomena totally.

We do not know a little of the construction of this universe.

You seem to conclude everything. You assert your scientific ideas to make conclusions. We all are in a vortex.

We do not know how long we live and nothing is under our control

Atheism interests many, and this is an obsession and has almost been a religion the way communism has been one.

When we have a fixation we become blind to the rest of disciplines.

I am not obsessed with theism or atheism.

I am open to ideas, with no fixation. I am open to your ideas of atheism and to those with theism€.

[Pendragon]

Well, all I can say is, I seriously cannot believe the amount of people who continue to beat at rubber walls. Believers in Evolution are not gonna change, nor are believers in Creationism. And those of us in the middle of the road beat beat upon from both sides, one for going too far and one for not going far enough! :brickwall

[Gladys]

Evolution is a scientific theory that seems to partially explain and predict more natural phenomena than competing theories, past and present. Likewise the Big Bang and Black Holes. In this sense the theories are valuable.

History has shown that few scientific theories survive intact over the centuries. Evolution too has changed much since Darwin. We are but babes in our understanding of the universe and its physics.

No scientific theory can claim to be 'true' in the way that, maybe, God can.

[The Atheist]

History has shown that few scientific theories survive intact over the centuries.

I think that's incorrect.

Almost all mathematical theories and laws have remained unchanged, as have most physical laws. I find it hard to find more than fine-tuning.

Some of the more esoteric theories and biological notions have been subject to change, but the circumference of a circle has been pi*d forever. Hard science changes surprisingly little.


Evolution too has changed much since Darwin. We are but babes in our understanding of the universe and its physics.

I'd argue that we actually understand the vast majority of the universe and its physics. Dark energy/matter might be quite exciting, but unless we discover a new dimension, there isn't much left of this one to find.

Again with evolution, I said earlier that it's changed, but it really is more of that fine-tuning than a wholesale "Darwin was wrong".


No scientific theory can claim to be 'true' in the way that, maybe, God can.

That's an interesting concept.

In what way does say the Theory of Pythagoras have less truth than an unsubstantiated fairytale?

[Gladys]

Some of the more esoteric theories and biological notions have been subject to change, but the circumference of a circle has been pi*d forever. Hard science changes surprisingly little.

Scientific theories are confined to the empirical sciences, physical and social, whereas mathematics is essentially just a tool for modelling our scientific understanding. As Albert Einstein once said, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."


I'd argue that we actually understand the vast majority of the universe and its physics.

Even the physics of Earth is poorly understood: life; human health; animal, insect and arachnid biology; the oceans; global warming; volcanoes; tsunamis and earthquakes, to name just a few.

[The Atheist]

Scientific theories are confined to the empirical sciences, physical and social, whereas mathematics is essentially just a tool for modelling our scientific understanding. As Albert Einstein once said, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Ah, the old agnostic argument.

While Einstein was the smartest bloke who ever lived, he always let his tongue get into some strange formations. It's a German thing, I think. Like his comments on Spinoza's god and the wonder of the universe, old Albie was trying to please everyone all the time.

All science is mathematics. Any pretence that we don't live in "reality" is just a plea for agnosticism. As I said last week, it's all very well in high-school debates, but in the wider universe, it's just silliness.


Even the physics of Earth is poorly understood: life; human health; animal, insect and arachnid biology; the oceans; global warming; volcanoes; tsunamis and earthquakes, to name just a few.

Nope, I'm still disagreeing with you.

Our understanding of all the things you mention is as near to complete as makes sense at this stage. We can watch your brain think about a boat floating on a lake, we know everything we want to about arachnids and insects and their DNA and habits, we can cure or identify almost every disease humans can get, and we understand implicitly how volcanoes, tsunamis and earthquakes happen.

If we look at all science as a single book, I'd venture it would be 80-90% complete so far, with only a few odd blank pages and some blank sections, but largely accurate.

It's hard separating the facts from the fallacies, and global warming is a really good example. Well over 95% of climatologists are in broad agreement about what's going on, but lots of engineers, accountants, politicians and lawyers don't believe them.

As Richard Dawkins said - if there is disagreement on a subject, that doesn't mean that the truth is somewhere in the middle. It is possible for one side to be completely wrong.

I'd swap "possibly" for "usually".

[PeterL]

you.

If we look at all science as a single book, I'd venture it would be 80-90% complete so far, with only a few odd blank pages and some blank sections, but largely accurate.

I think that you are very over-optimistic bout that book. I think it would be sfe to say that while 80 to 90% of the pges are there, there are large sections where there re double sets of pages, because there is so much disagreement bout the matter.


Well over 95% of climatologists are in broad agreement about what's going on, but lots of engineers, accountants, politicians and lawyers don't believe them.


While about 90% of climatologists agree that there is climate change going on, they would also agree that there is no solid evidence that humans caused ny of that change, and that it is uncertain whether there has been significant warming. People who have not studied the climate have tended to go overboard in thinking that humans have caused warming.

[Gladys]

While Einstein was the smartest bloke who ever lived, he always let his tongue get into some strange formations.

Your evangelical fervour, Atheist, for the achievements of science is inspiring. The fanatical Richard Dawkins would applaud. Notwithstanding, I'm happy to side with the skeptical Einstein.

His quote had little to do with religious agnosticism or Spinosa, but expresses the inherent limitation of mathematics as a tool of science. Mathematics develops to describe empirical evidence relating to society and the physical universe, though occasionally a mathematical model foreshadows a significant empirical discovery. In a complex universe, mathematics only ever approximates to natural phenomena, though for engineering purposes approximations invariably suffice.

For those who venerate the material world, science has become their salvation. For myself, the material world and its mastery is of secondary importance. Christian or otherwise, 'Man shall not live by bread alone'!


If we look at all science as a single book, I'd venture it would be 80-90% complete so far

If I had to venture percentage completion, 0.000 000 001 % would be outrageously high. In respect of science, it may rightly be said of me, 'O ye of little faith'.

As for the theory of evolution: it explains empirical evidence and makes testable predictions much better than Creation Science and its successors.

[The Atheist]

I think that you are very over-optimistic bout that book. I think it would be sfe to say that while 80 to 90% of the pges are there, there are large sections where there re double sets of pages, because there is so much disagreement bout the matter.

I think you (and Gladys) are guilty of underestimating what science actually is.

Which areas of science do you feel there's disagreement about?

I look at it that the areas of disgreement, when viewed against the totality of science, are extremely small, so I'm interested to see what you think the problems are. The 80+% of the book which is filled in covers all of the everyday laws of science we have around us.


While about 90% of climatologists agree that there is climate change going on, they would also agree that there is no solid evidence that humans caused ny of that change, and that it is uncertain whether there has been significant warming. People who have not studied the climate have tended to go overboard in thinking that humans have caused warming.

I'm not about to get into a climate debate, but the climate debate isn't about lack of knowledge, it's about lack of data. We're trying to compile a model based on estimations. Our climate records extend back for a miserly couple of hundred years on a time scale in millions. Climate science isn't a knowledge gap, it's a lack of empirical data from the ~4 billion years prior to recordings being made. History, not science, is the problem.


Your evangelical fervour, Atheist, for the achievements of science is inspiring. The fanatical Richard Dawkins would applaud. Notwithstanding, I'm happy to side with the skeptical Einstein.

Evangelical fervour?

Interesting take on it.

There are two options with dealing with reality - either accept it or not. I choose to accept that what we see is what it is. The only arguments against reality are philosophical ones - there isn't even a working hypothesis of what reality is if it isn't what we see - so I find it very easy to dismiss as naive nonsense.

Keanu Reeves or Douglas Adams.... hmmm.

As to Einstein's alleged scepticism, I love it that he is held by theists, deists and agnostics alike as a paragon of "what might be". He was a master of the middle ground, which I'd say came from his inherent Jewishness in the early 20th century, but he clearly let his true feelings run loose in personal letters. In that vein, we see Einstein not so much as a lover of silliness, but someone who calls it for childish nonsense it is.


His quote had little to do with religious agnosticism or Spinosa, but expresses the inherent limitation of mathematics as a tool of science. His quote had little to do with religious agnosticism or Spinosa, but expresses the inherent limitation of mathematics as a tool of science.

Mathematics develops to describe empirical evidence relating to society and the physical universe, though occasionally a mathematical model foreshadows a significant empirical discovery. In a complex universe, mathematics only ever approximates to natural phenomena, though for engineering purposes approximations invariably suffice.

No, I think you're making another category error.

There are two reasons maths doesn't appear to work in the "real world". The old argument goes that two apples can never be identical to the last electron, so maths doesn't truly work.

Unfortunately, this is a fallacy - the maths is completely workable, but it would probably take more computing power than Google has to work it out to the last electron. Along with that, the enormous expense of a pointless exercise is totally unjustifiable and nobody's ever going to do it.

Given enough computing power and data, an accurate model of the entire universe is possible. You'd probably need a computer the size of Jupiter to work it out though.

Engineering uses approximations because it's easier.


For those who venerate the material world, science has become their salvation. For myself, the material world and its mastery is of secondary importance. Christian or otherwise, 'Man shall not live by bread alone'!

Yes. I'd always hoped that people would see that phrase as referring to love, fun, laughter, imagination, dreams and wonder, but alas, most people see it as an excuse to want fairies at the bottom of the garden.


If I had to venture percentage completion, 0.000 000 001 % would be outrageously high. In respect of science, it may rightly be said of me, 'O ye of little faith'.

And you type that sitting at a computer thousands of kilometres away from me, using technology which would have astounded people from only a century ago. 100 years ago, the only means by which you could have communicated with me is by letter on a ship. (The paper, pen, envelope, seal and ship all brought to you by science as well)

Today, you tap a keyboard, uploading it to the largest machine ever built on earth, from where I access it at the speed of light. (Apart from the speed of light, all brought to you by science!)

:)


As for the theory of evolution: it explains empirical evidence and makes testable predictions much better than Creation Science and its successors.

Can't disagree with that!

[PeterL]

I think you (and Gladys) are guilty of underestimating what science actually is.

I suspect that I know at least as much about what science is than you do.


Which areas of science do you feel there's disagreement about?

Almost everywhere, but worse are the places where actual fact differs from orthodoxy. Some specific examples of areas where large disagreements exist include: Evolutionary Anthropology is full of disagreement; In physics there is a major problem with underlying theory, Relativity is based on false assumptions and doesn't agree with all observations.


I look at it that the areas of disagreement, when viewed against the totality of science, are extremely small, so I'm interested to see what you think the problems are. The 80+% of the book which is filled in covers all of the everyday laws of science we have around us.

Many of the details of science are empirical, based purely on observation, and those matters are often correct. Sometimes scientists have allowed their prejudices to overrule the observations. The Michelson-Morley Experiment is an excellent example of that. The theory predicted that aether affected light speed to one amount; the actual effect was much lower; Michelson and Morley did not look for problems with the theory. Since then people have simply assumed that there was no aether, even though the results show that there is aether. There are similar problem with Relativity.


I'm not about to get into a climate debate, but the climate debate isn't about lack of knowledge, it's about lack of data. We're trying to compile a model based on estimations. Our climate records extend back for a miserly couple of hundred years on a time scale in millions. Climate science isn't a knowledge gap, it's a lack of empirical data from the ~4 billion years prior to recordings being made. History, not science, is the problem.


I don't disagree that a lack data is a problem, but there is an adequate amount of evidence for the last couple of millennia.

[The Atheist]

I suspect that I know at least as much about what science is than you do.

Going by posts of yours I've seen, I agree, which is why I'm wondering where the mistake is.


Almost everywhere, but worse are the places where actual fact differs from orthodoxy. Some specific examples of areas where large disagreements exist include: Evolutionary Anthropology is full of disagreement; In physics there is a major problem with underlying theory, Relativity is based on false assumptions and doesn't agree with all observations.

But these are the tiny areas I've been talking about. Compared to the vast amount of scientific knowledge we have, these things are drops in the bucket. Fine-tuning.


Many of the details of science are empirical, based purely on observation, and those matters are often correct. Sometimes scientists have allowed their prejudices to overrule the observarions. The Michelson-Morley Experiiment is an excellent example of that. The theory predicted that aether affected light speed to one amount; the actual effect was much lower; Michelson and Morley did not look for problems with the theory. Since then people have simply assumed that there was no aether, even though the results show that there is aether. There are similar problem with Relativity.

I'd never argue that scientists aren't able to be convinced by their own biases; I have ongoing battles with several due to that exact problem.

That isn't "science" however. Ideas and hypotheses become science when they have been published and peer-reviewed. In many cases, and Michelson & Morley are a classic example, what at first appears to be science is not. It is published, then found to be flawed. That makes it an error by scientists, rather than false science. It's the very strength of science that the rubbish is weeded out this way.


I don't disagree that a lack data is a problem, but there is an adequate amount of evidece for the last couple of millennia.

Not really, no. We don't know what the La Nina/El Nino patterns were in individual years, we don't have accurate weather statistics and we don't know what the size of polar ice caps were. What we're doing with climate science is trying to make a wheel using pi as "about 3 and a sixth".

[Gladys]

Which areas of science do you feel there's disagreement about?

A little more than a century ago, radio, air travel and motor cars were unimaginable. Fifty years on, so were antibiotics, A-bombs, Moon travel, TV, PCs and portable music players. Today, are we 80-90 %, or even 0.000 000 001 %, towards the endpoint of scientific progress? I think not.


Given enough computing power and data, an accurate model of the entire universe is possible.

We know so little of the physics of our world and next to nothing of the physics of the universe. For instance, much of the mass of the universe exists in Black Holes, for which all our physics is probably irrelevant. Humility befits ignorance.

[blazeofglory]

A little more than a century ago, radio, air travel and motor cars were unimaginable. Fifty years on, so were antibiotics, A-bombs, Moon travel, TV, PCs and portable music players. Today, are we 80-90 %, or even 0.000 000 001 %, towards the endpoint of scientific progress? I think not.



We know so little of the physics of our world and next to nothing of the physics of the universe. For instance, much of the mass of the universe exists in Black Holes, for which all our physics is probably irrelevant. Humility befits ignorance.

Of course there is no development of science to that extent, ans science is still at its premature stage in so far as the universe is concerned. What we know of science is a few theories.

Man cannot be hooked to sets of theories and want to break through new domains of knowledge.

[The Atheist]

A little more than a century ago, radio, air travel and motor cars were unimaginable. Fifty years on, so were antibiotics, A-bombs, Moon travel, TV, PCs and portable music players. Today, are we 80-90 %, or even 0.000 000 001 %, towards the endpoint of scientific progress? I think not.

Well, since we just disagree, let's agree to check it out in 20 years and see what progress we've made in that time.

:)


We know so little of the physics of our world and next to nothing of the physics of the universe. For instance, much of the mass of the universe exists in Black Holes, for which all our physics is probably irrelevant. Humility befits ignorance.

Goodness me; as a woman, I'd surprised you think size matters!

That the vast majority of matter resides in black holes and that the vast majority of "stuff" in the universe is actually dark energy/matter just doesn't..... matter! Inside black holes and dark energy/matter, whatever it is will almost certainly each conform to one simple set of physical rules. I'd take a good bet that no life, and especially no sentient life exists inside of any of the above, that nothing actually happens "in" them at all. Accordingly, while we might not know what happens to/in 99% of the mass and energy in the unverse, if they only have tidal effects on the rest of the universe - which seems to be the case - the gap that the lack of knowledge about them causes is fairly small from where I see it.

[PeterL]

But these are the tiny areas I've been talking about. Compared to the vast amount of scientific knowledge we have, these things are drops in the bucket. Fine-tuning.


I think it may be a matter of judgement as to importance. I consider the problems with Relativity to be major, while you seem to think that it simply requires fine-tuning for one.
If one were to remove the false assumptions, then the theory would no longer exist; but removing a few sentences from the statement of a theory is, by some measures, a small change.

Evolutionary anthropologists operate with different sets of definitions; what some call different species others call variations.
This might be fine-tuning, but regardless of what would be tuned, a large amount of literaature would be discarded.

[The Atheist]

I think it may be a matter of judgement as to importance. I consider the problems with Relativity to be major, while you seem to think that it simply requires fine-tuning for one.
If one were to remove the false assumptions, then the theory would no longer exist; but removing a few sentences from the statement of a theory is, by some measures, a small change.

You hit the nail right on the head. I really don't think changes to the ToR will be earth-shattering. I am yet to be convinced that it matters beyond the almost-esoteric level anyway - I just wish they'd hurry up and get the hadron collider working. (again)


Evolutionary anthropologists operate with different sets of definitions; what some call different species others call variations.
This might be fine-tuning, but regardless of what would be tuned, a large amount of literaature would be discarded.

With evolution, it's a lot more clear-cut. Yes, large amounts might yet be changed completely, but those large amounts are a tiny fraction of the whole of knowledge we have. We've probably still only discovered 1% of species which ever existed, but even discovery of the other 99% in some amazing fossil pit wouldn't change the ToE in any great way at all. Like climate, it's only missing data and wouldn't - I don't think - cause any kind of wider re-appraisal of the whole theory.

[Gladys]

With evolution, it's a lot more clear-cut. Yes, large amounts might yet be changed completely, but those large amounts are a tiny fraction of the whole of knowledge we have.

Even small changes in knowledge can have staggering consequences, and lead to unimaginable increases in knowledge. For instance, while little changed in nuclear physics between 1926 and 1946, following the A-bomb, our knowledge of space and submarine travel, warfare, power generation and medicine has expanded massively. Similarly with the discovery of the transistor. Will the future be different?

[Nick Capozzoli]

All science is mathematics.

This is an interesting and arguable statement. It may be
true or it may not be. It needs discussion.

Mathematicians will tell you that mathematics is a kind of
mental game based on what is called "logical thinking" and
other basic concepts of "number," "counting," and "spatial
and time dimensions."

Mathematics certainly depends on the way the human mind
works. Whether or not the human mind works has anything to
do with the way the physical world works is arguable.

What I think is not arguable is that the only way we have to
understand the physical world is to use our minds to make sense
of it. Mathematics has been very effective so far in this
endeavor.

I forget who it was who said "The Universe may not be stranger
than we think; it may be stranger than we can think." I don't
believe it was Einstein, but another cosmologist.

Nick

[The Atheist]

This is an interesting and arguable statement. It may be
true or it may not be. It needs discussion.

Only if you can find something which doesn't conform to an algorithm.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Only if you can find something which doesn't conform to an algorithm.

I thought my comments were clear and I was hoping for a clear response. Your response referring to conformation with an algorithm is not clear to me.

Mathematical reasoning has certainly demonstrated its usefulness to scientists, especially physicists, who try to understand how the world
"works." A "problem" with seeing mathematics as "science" is that mathematics is really a mind game (admittedly a very elegant one) like Chess or Go. The physical world (including everything from subatomic particles to galaxies and living and non-living things) is what it is. We humans, who can think about stuff, try to make sense of the physical world. We use all sorts of strategies to make sense of it. One of these strategies is to find "laws" that describe (and can predict) what we percieve and experience of the physical world.

Equations are nice when you can find them, like F=ma, but Darwin and Wallace's hypothesis about biological evolution by natural selection is an example of a profound "non-mathematical" insight into the way the world works. The fact is that mathematics gives not a whit about the physical world. There are plenty of "valid" mathematical formulations that may or may not be found by "scientists" to be useful in describing this or that aspect of
the world as we experience it.

Nick

[billl]

Mathematics is OK when we look at the decay of a group of uranium atoms, but doesn't help much when we look at just one.

[Gladys]

A "problem" with seeing mathematics as "science" is that mathematics is really a mind game...

Yes. Mathematics is used to model fragments of our universe, sometimes well, but never perfectly because the physical world is orders of magnitude more complex than our puny models.

[The Atheist]

I thought my comments were clear and I was hoping for a clear response. Your response referring to conformation with an algorithm is not clear to me.

Mathematical reasoning has certainly demonstrated its usefulness to scientists, especially physicists, who try to understand how the world
"works." A "problem" with seeing mathematics as "science" is that mathematics is really a mind game (admittedly a very elegant one) like Chess or Go. The physical world (including everything from subatomic particles to galaxies and living and non-living things) is what it is.

That's it! The last sentence.

And so far, aside from Nick's objection below, and maybe quantum mechanics, maths can be used to show exactly what the physical world does and is.

Given enough time and computing power, literally any physical problem can be reduced to maths. The reason it isn't is simple. Take a thunderstorm, for example; to work out precisely where every electron in that thunderstorm is, where it's moving to, and what its movement will generate is entirely possible.

The problem is simply that it would take all of the computers on the planet and a billion programmers to work out one storm on our current calculation ability.

Bit hard to make that pay just yet. Another century.


We humans, who can think about stuff, try to make sense of the physical world. We use all sorts of strategies to make sense of it. One of these strategies is to find "laws" that describe (and can predict) what we percieve and experience of the physical world.

Equations are nice when you can find them, like F=ma, but Darwin and Wallace's hypothesis about biological evolution by natural selection is an example of a profound "non-mathematical" insight into the way the world works. The fact is that mathematics gives not a whit about the physical world. There are plenty of "valid" mathematical formulations that may or may not be found by "scientists" to be useful in describing this or that aspect of
the world as we experience it.

Nick

I'm glad you mention evolution, because all of evolution can indeed be broken down into mathematical modelling.

Not very easily, and the maths used is so far above my pathetic ability that it's scary, but trust me, it can be done. It is being done as we speak and results are astounding.


Mathematics is OK when we look at the decay of a group of uranium atoms, but doesn't help much when we look at just one.

Annoying but true.

Could be that quantum physics has some answers, but the other side of the coin is the question of how much or whether the decay matters on a physical level.


Yes. Mathematics is used to model fragments of our universe, sometimes well, but never perfectly because the physical world is orders of magnitude more complex than our puny models.

"Ability to compute" is more accurate.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Mathematics is OK when we look at the decay of a group of uranium atoms, but doesn't help much when we look at just one.
Yeah. Your point might be obscure to folks who haven't taken college level Calculus I, Physics I, and Basic Statistics, but those of us who have get the point. The radioctive decay of a large mass of radioactive atoms with a certain "half life" seems to be described by a simple antiderivative (integral) dt/t function. But this dosen't allow us to predict whether or not any one atom will decay while we are looking at it. For all we know, we can sit and watch that atom forever, and it might or might not decay without violating the general rule we've established to describe the behavior of a large population of these atoms. Am I getting this right so far?

I say, so what? It's apples and oranges. Science is full of these apparent mathematical versus experiential connundrums, especially when the science employs probabalistic versus descrete/finite mathematics to escribe "reality."

Thermodynamics is a good example. I love classical thermodynamics because
it is a branch of physics whose laws deal with physical experience in a way that seems to blighthy accept probabalistic and finite mathematical aspects of "reality" without choking on the apparent contradictions. The laws of thermodynamics (e.g. the Second Law) predict that a glass of water at room temperature on your kitchen table will not spontaneously turn into ice. However, such a glass of water could do so, though it would be highly improbable.

We humans have come up with some pretty impressive explanations of how the world "works." For what my opinion is worth, I have been most impressed
by Classical Thermodynamics and the Darwin/Wallace Theory of Natural Selection.

Nick

[billl]

I admit there might be some nuance there I missed, but I will basically say I agree with you NC.

[The Atheist]

Yeah. Your point might be obscure to folks who haven't taken college level Calculus I, Physics I, and Basic Statistics, but those of us who have get the point. The radioctive decay of a large mass of radioactive atoms with a certain "half life" seems to be described by a simple antiderivative (integral) dt/t function. But this dosen't allow us to predict whether or not any one atom will decay while we are looking at it. For all we know, we can sit and watch that atom forever, and it might or might not decay without violating the general rule we've established to describe the behavior of a large population of these atoms. Am I getting this right so far?

Spot on


I say, so what? It's apples and oranges. Science is full of these apparent mathematical versus experiential connundrums, especially when the science employs probabalistic versus descrete/finite mathematics to escribe "reality."

Right again.

In a nutshell, the small stuff seems to be largely irrelevant in reality.

[Gladys]

Mathematics is OK when we look at the decay of a group of uranium atoms, but doesn't help much when we look at just one.

While Nick Capozzoli addresses this matter well, there is more to be said. Although science can say nothing about the decay of a particular atom, no one can confidently exclude a scientific breakthrough, human or alien, a hundred or a billion years from now. Like Aristotle's long-revered solar system, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, for instance, may not be the last word. The mathematics of radioactive decay may eventually, in the distant future, address more that just the probabilistic.

While The Atheist may argue 'the small stuff seems to be largely irrelevant in reality', past breakthroughs relating to 'small stuff' have led to electricity, electronics and nuclear technology, which are far from irrelevant - and all this in a couple of centuries. Why would breakthroughs in millennia to come count for little?

[billl]

Yeah, I believe the small stuff is going to be very important, actually.

That doesn't discredit what science has accomplished, and it of course doesn't mean at all that science won't have anything to do with the new things we learn. And, with any luck, there'll always be new stuff to figure out.

[The Atheist]

While The Atheist may argue 'the small stuff seems to be largely irrelevant in reality', past breakthroughs relating to 'small stuff' have led to electricity, electronics and nuclear technology, which are far from irrelevant - and all this in a couple of centuries. Why would breakthroughs in millennia to come count for little?

I don't mean small in size - nuclear fission & fusion and electricity are not what I'd class as small. I'm referring to quantum effects, which appear not to have an effect on everyday things, and the random decay of U238, again, hardly something which has a measurable effect on the world/universe.


Yeah, I believe the small stuff is going to be very important, actually.

You could be right, but the consistency of physics in the universe measured against the incosistency of quantum mechanics tends to suggest the opposite.


That doesn't discredit what science has accomplished, and it of course doesn't mean at all that science won't have anything to do with the new things we learn. And, with any luck, there'll always be new stuff to figure out.

You'd hope that discoveries just become part of science. If it works, we can measure and quantify it.

[AlaskaDan]

Isn't the real truth, that none of us know the real truth?

[The Atheist]

Isn't the real truth, that none of us know the real truth?

Depends on how pedantic you are on the meaning of "true".

You could claim that you cannot prove 1+1=2 if you like. Technically, you'd be right, but in reality, it's pretty silly.

[Babbalanja]

No scientific theory can claim to be 'true' in the way that, maybe, God can.Actually, you've got that backward. If God is "true," it's true in a way that's vastly different from the way we define "true" in any other context.

It's about approaches to knowledge. When we say we know humans and chimps have a common ancestor, or that the Earth orbits the Sun, we're affirming the validity of empirical evidential inquiry. We're saying that the process of hypothesizing and testing actually tells us reliable things about our universe.

However, saying we know God loves us affirms an approach to knowledge that's very different: we say these things out loud, but they can mean something different to each person who says them, if in fact they mean anything at all.

Regards,

Istvan

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact it is very essential to discern a line between science and faith.
And evolution kind of completely revolutionizes everything and today it has reversed or uprooted our age old belief systems.

But the theory of evolution cannot answer every question that may crop up in our minds

[Babbalanja]

And evolution kind of completely revolutionizes everything and today it has reversed or uprooted our age old belief systems.Philosopher Daniel Dennett says the validity of evolution by natural selection nullifies one of humanity's most cherished myths: that design presupposes a designing intelligence. The notion that a set of natural algorithms operating without foresight for billions of years produced the staggeringly complex wonders of Nature does away with our philosophical fetishes about will and intention.

Regards,

Istvan

[Nick Capozzoli]

Philosopher Daniel Dennett says the validity of evolution by natural selection nullifies one of humanity's most cherished myths: that design presupposes a designing intelligence. The notion that a set of natural algorithms operating without foresight for billions of years produced the staggeringly complex wonders of Nature does away with our philosophical fetishes about will and intention.

Ah, the contentious topic of Intelligent Design v. Evolution by Natural Selection. Is it impossible to reconcile belief in God with the evidence that life evolved through natural selection? Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) seems to think so.

I'm convinced that the theory of evolution by natural selection describes the evolution of life, and that it, along with the laws of thermodynamics, is a most compelling scientific explanation of the world.

I think that I understand these scientific theories, and I believe that they explain things very well, within the limits of our ability to undertand and explain the world. I also believe that God created everything in the universe and all of the laws regarding its behavior. I suppose that my belief could be seen as Deistic.

We can't prove that God exists or created the universe. That remains a matter of belief. All I am saying is that I believe that God created our universe and the laws of physics, and that we in fact did evolve. I say that you can believe that life evolved by natural selection and that you can also believe that God created the universe.

[blazeofglory]

In fact it is really hard to reconcile between these two diverse views, one is based on reason and the other on faith, polar opposite notions. I have gone enough through both points of view and I am always in conflict with myself when it comes to make an inference. Of course this cosmos is unfathomable, mysterious. Science through physics tries to illuminate certain phenomena of the universe. It is of course limited and their search cannot be extended beyond a point and when we fail to comprehend these unexplainable episodes and phenomena we of course lend ourselves to theologies and that is why most of us even having been intellectually disposed are still strong believers and that is how faith evolved. And of course we never can reconcile these diametrically opposite views on the world

[OrphanPip]

As someone with a degree in biology the ID debate has always been of interest to me.

Personal belief is purely personal, if you want to believe there is a designer, that's fine. Just make sure you realize that this is faith, and has no empirical evidence to back it up. It is just as unfalsifiable as the notion of gods itself. I don't care what people believe in their private time as long as it doesn't interfere directly with reason.

ID just simply needs to stay out of the science classroom and in the churches. I particularly take issue with the efforts of ID proponents to discredit evolution through dishonest tactics in the media. It makes me furious whenever someone tries to bring non-science into science.

[Babbalanja]

I say that you can believe that life evolved by natural selection and that you can also believe that God created the universe.True. All Dawkins and Dennett are saying is that you can't use the fact that species evolve or that the universe operates according to various physical laws as evidence to justify your belief in a god.

Regards,

Istvan

[The Atheist]

As someone with a degree in biology the ID debate has always been of interest to me.

I would have thought ID/creationism would be of more interest to a psych grad!

:D


Personal belief is purely personal, if you want to believe there is a designer, that's fine. Just make sure you realize that this is faith, and has no empirical evidence to back it up. It is just as unfalsifiable as the notion of gods itself. I don't care what people believe in their private time as long as it doesn't interfere directly with reason.

ID just simply needs to stay out of the science classroom and in the churches. I particularly take issue with the efforts of ID proponents to discredit evolution through dishonest tactics in the media. It makes me furious whenever someone tries to bring non-science into science.

Ditto.

Trying to warp science to fit belief is quite a bizarre thing to do.

As Nick said, and a billion or so Catholics display, science can co-exist with religion. It's the Luddites who are the problem - an unfortunately vocal minority.

[Nick Capozzoli]

True. All Dawkins and Dennett are saying is that you can't use the fact that species evolve or that the universe operates according to various physical laws as evidence to justify your belief in a god.

I'm not sure that this is all that they are saying. They seem to be saying that evolution proves (or at least strongly suggests) that God does not exist. Dawkins, in particular, seems to delight in ridiculing the stupidity of those who believe in God. I agree with your position that science can't be used to prove God exists, and I would add that science can't be used to prove that God doesn't exist. As Atheist said, many religious scientists have been able to accept evolution and God. There are Luddites on both sides of the debate, namely the Biblical Fundamentalist ID'ers and the Radical Scientific Atheists.

Lest we forget, there have been many great scientists who had strong religious beliefs, and who were able to maintain their faith in God while working in science. Newton, Einstein, and Darwin were not atheists.

One way for a religious scientist to reconcile science and faith would be to postulate that God created the universe (matter, energy, space, time, and all of the "laws" that regulate the behavior of the universe). This is essentially Deism. The modern Deist does not argue that God "designed" living creatures or their complex parts, but accepts that these arose by natural processes.

[OrphanPip]

One way for a religious scientist to reconcile science and faith would be to postulate that God created the universe (matter, energy, space, time, and all of the "laws" that regulate the behavior of the universe). This is essentially Deism. The modern Deist does not argue that God "designed" living creatures or their complex parts, but accepts that these arose by natural processes.

A priori assumptions are bad in science. Science is a methodology, and it operates on the basis of a key assumption, that we can trust empirical observations of the world. If we allow the assumption of God into science, then you open the door to any assumption.

As to not being able to disprove God, this is a very weak reason to believe in one. I can't disprove that the Easter Bunny exists either.

[The Atheist]

I'm not sure that this is all that they are saying. They seem to be saying that evolution proves (or at least strongly suggests) that God does not exist.

No.

You need to read him more carefully - he never says any such thing, although lots of people who haven't read his books think so.

He says that evolution disproves young earth creationism, which is quite correct.


Dawkins, in particular, seems to delight in ridiculing the stupidity of those who believe in God.

Can't say I blame him, and I'm a bit the same myself. There's so much religious stupidity in the world and Monty Python gave up some years back.


I agree with your position that science can't be used to prove God exists, and I would add that science can't be used to prove that God doesn't exist. As Atheist said, many religious scientists have been able to accept evolution and God. There are Luddites on both sides of the debate, namely the Biblical Fundamentalist ID'ers and the Radical Scientific Atheists.
(Bolding mine)

I'm not sure the final group I've bolded isn't just a strawman created by religionistas. Of the few atheists I know who insist that "god/s do not exist" as a positive statement - and I'm presuming they're who you mean - not one of them tries to claim that science can prove the non-existence.


Lest we forget, there have been many great scientists who had strong religious beliefs, and who were able to maintain their faith in God while working in science. Newton, Einstein, and Darwin were not atheists.

You're not going to suggest that Einstein had faith in a god are you? While he never took an atheist tag, he was demonstrably an agnostic who enunciated his views very clearly all his life.


As to not being able to disprove God, this is a very weak reason to believe in one. I can't disprove that the Easter Bunny exists either.

I can disprove the Easter Bunny.

I never tasted chocolate until I was 20!

:bawling:

[Babbalanja]

I'm not sure that this is all that they are saying. They seem to be saying that evolution proves (or at least strongly suggests) that God does not exist.
One definition of God, sure. Specifically, the Designing Intelligence God.

The type of design we see in the biosphere is just the sort we would expect after countless iterations of a set of mindless processes: wildly, redundantly, unnecessarily complex jerry-rigging of previous designs. It's not the type of design that suggests intention and foresight. So if someone thinks God made the roses and the bunnies, that's the type of God that the facts of evolution refute.

If you actually read Dawkins, he goes as far as to say (in The God Delusion) that he doesn't claim to KNOW God doesn't exist. Like any skeptic, his notion of certainty is statistically defined: the possibility that God exists may be extremely unlikely, but even Dawkins would not define it as impossible.

Regards,

Istvan

[Nadioui]

:nod: that's what i am looking for as a new subscriber. te current scientific theories of evolution intrests me so much especially those thas are related to communication in the light of the strong presence of culture shocks , the fear of all what is strange...

lets have a nod at this:argue::santasmil















Mostly...[/QUOTE]

[Nick Capozzoli]

You're not going to suggest that Einstein had faith in a god are you? While he never took an atheist tag, he was demonstrably an agnostic who enunciated his views very clearly all his life.
:bawling:

Well, didn't Einstein comment on his aversion to Quantum Theory by saying that "God doesn't play with dice?" (or something very close to that)? Newton's belief in God is well documented. Darwin never denied his belief in the existence of God, and never claimed that his theories were incompatable with belief in a Creator.

[The Atheist]

Well, didn't Einstein comment on his aversion to Quantum Theory by saying that "God doesn't play with dice?" (or something very close to that)?

That's what he said, but he was using it metaphorically.

His denial of theism is well documented.


Newton's belief in God is well documented. Darwin never denied his belief in the existence of God, and never claimed that his theories were incompatable with belief in a Creator.

Correct.

[Gladys]

His denial of theism is well documented.

From Wiki:

In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

[Jozanny]

I haven't been following this thread, partly because what little I do know of the hard science, even written for a general education audience, is complex, but I can say that Einstein used *God* as a noun inconsistently, perhaps as a way to personalize the forces involved. I don't know. Theoretical physics and biology stretches the limits of my mind's ability to grasp it all.

[blazeofglory]

One definition of God, sure. Specifically, the Designing Intelligence God.

The type of design we see in the biosphere is just the sort we would expect after countless iterations of a set of mindless processes: wildly, redundantly, unnecessarily complex jerry-rigging of previous designs. It's not the type of design that suggests intention and foresight. So if someone thinks God made the roses and the bunnies, that's the type of God that the facts of evolution refute.

If you actually read Dawkins, he goes as far as to say (in The God Delusion) that he doesn't claim to KNOW God doesn't exist. Like any skeptic, his notion of certainty is statistically defined: the possibility that God exists may be extremely unlikely, but even Dawkins would not define it as impossible.

Regards,

Istvan

I too have that feeling and in point of fact it is really hard to conclusively say whether or not God exists. I cannot reason it or measure it in empirical terms. Science is there; theory of evolution stands there and lots of arguments of course for and against the existence of God. Yet deep down I feel that we know little with all our reasons, sciences and logical reasoning.

But I somewhere deep down feel that billions of people over centuries, millenniums have been holding faith and of course there is no strong logic and that those who hold faith cannot logically or scientifically prove does not mean that the idea of God is totally wrong.

You can not exactly say what love is nor can any logic or any ideas or arguments can measure the depth of the mind.

I often become skeptical about God and particularly when I read lots of books and read books of atheism I turn to be an atheist and argue against the existence of God.
But when I see so many people flocking to temples, churches, monasteries I feel there is something beyond what we logicians, evolutionists, empiricists construe in point of fact.

If I am conscious, there must be some bigger whole or powerful being that must me more powerful and that power empowers me and yet I do not feel different from that source of consciousness.

This is what I feel exactly today, honestly speaking and tomorrow what I may feel I do not know.

[The Atheist]

From Wiki:


First off, "Spinoza's god" is a deist position, not theist.

Secondly, Einstein's feelings on the theist position are best exemplified in his private correspondence where he describes the belief as "childish".

[Nick Capozzoli]

That's what he said, but he was using it metaphorically.

Well, he also said that science without religion and religion without science were "blind" and "lame," respectively. It doesn't clarify anything by saying that Einstein used "God" metaphorically. Einstein was not an atheist. He clearly professed a belief in God (as did Newton and Darwin). Einstein's God seems to have been like Spinoza's, which was like the God of the Deists.

Spinoza was excommunicated for heresy in teaching that the Universe was a manefestation of God. It's a bit unclear whether his ideas amounted to pantheism or panentheism, but from my reading it seems he tended to believe more in the latter.

Science may never be able to prove that God exists or does not exist.

I have read Dawkin's books quite closely, and I don't think I have misunderstood anything he wrote. Of course he was never so foolish as to say that evolutionary biology disproved the existence of a Creator, but he clearly takes he position that a Creator is extremely improbable and is in any case "unecessary" from the scientific point of view.

I think that it is possible to believe in a Creator of the Universe, a supreme being who preceded existence and at some point said "Let there be..." time, matter, the Big Bang, or whatever.

[The Atheist]

Well, he also said that science without religion and religion without science were "blind" and "lame," respectively. It doesn't clarify anything by saying that Einstein used "God" metaphorically. Einstein was not an atheist. He clearly professed a belief in God (as did Newton and Darwin). Einstein's God seems to have been like Spinoza's, which was like the God of the Deists.

Trying to present Einstein as anything other than the mildest form of deist is flat wrong.

How clear do you want it?


The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this

I don't think anyone's suggested he was an atheist, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating that he wasn't.


Science may never be able to prove that God exists or does not exist.

Science has no business in it at all; the onus is clearly in those who posit god/s to present evidence on their behalf. Science can then test those claims, but matters of faith are irrelevant to science.


I have read Dawkin's books quite closely, and I don't think I have misunderstood anything he wrote...

Which is why I agreed with you.


I think that it is possible to believe in a Creator of the Universe, a supreme being who preceded existence and at some point said "Let there be..." time, matter, the Big Bang, or whatever.

Yes.

It's also possible to believe in fairies, the Loch Ness monster, alien crop circles and bigfoot.

[OrphanPip]

Science may never be able to prove that God exists or does not exist.


I imagine so because it's logically impossible to prove anything, and the god hypothesis is unfalsifiable, thus can not be disproved by convention of it's formation.

I can't prove or disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny, it is hardly worth mentioning.

Of course the existence of God is unnecessary in science, all untestable hypotheses are unnecessary.

[The Comedian]

I just don't get the idea that religions of any kind have to prove themselves by the methods and demands of science. It's just dumb. It's like asking science to prove it's existence in the Bible or Koran or Bhagavad Gita.

How about we prove that I love my wife my doing a color analysis of my love? Or ask me to measure the stink of latest trip to the can in centimeters? Or produce a logical tautology as prove why my 5-year old daughter cries when no one sits next to her on the school bus?

[The Atheist]

I just don't get the idea that religions of any kind have to prove themselves by the methods and demands of science. It's just dumb. It's like asking science to prove it's existence in the Bible or Koran or Bhagavad Gita.

Religions don't have to prove anything, but if claims are made that god/s exist and interact with the physical world, they are claims which are testable.

I'm just putting the onus of proof onto those who make claims.

No claims = no proof needed.

It's pretty simple.

[blazeofglory]

I just don't get the idea that religions of any kind have to prove themselves by the methods and demands of science. It's just dumb. It's like asking science to prove it's existence in the Bible or Koran or Bhagavad Gita.

How about we prove that I love my wife my doing a color analysis of my love? Or ask me to measure the stink of latest trip to the can in centimeters? Or produce a logical tautology as prove why my 5-year old daughter cries when no one sits next to her on the school bus?

I agree. There are falacies in scinetific theories or hypotheses. What we call science today may be a dogma tomarrow

[OrphanPip]

I agree. There are falacies in scinetific theories or hypotheses. What we call science today may be a dogma tomarrow

Science is a methodology, it is a tool, not a way of belief.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Trying to present Einstein as anything other than the mildest form of deist is flat wrong.

How clear do you want it?

I don't think anyone's suggested he was an atheist, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating that he wasn't.

It's also possible to believe in fairies, the Loch Ness monster, alien crop circles and bigfoot.

Well, I'm glad that you admit that Einstein believed in a Creator (you can call it "Spinoza's God," "Deus, Mildest Form," or whatever, but it is still a Creator. This is more than just using the term, "God" metaphorically, which was your original comment. As an atheist, are you in any way disappointed that Einstein (or Newton or Darwin) was not? Do you think that they were deluded?

I don't know why you have to refer to fairies, the Loch Ness monster, alien crop circles, and Bigfoot, except to take a cheap shot to equate belief in God
with belief in hoaxes. :confused:

[The Atheist]

Well, I'm glad that you admit that Einstein believed in a Creator (you can call it "Spinoza's God," "Deus, Mildest Form," or whatever, but it is still a Creator.

No, I do not admit that Einstein believed in a creator and I'm not at all sure he did. I read his words and se metaphors.

Since he's not here to ask, I never take much interest in what he thought aside from ensuring people don't try to claim he was a theist, which he very clearly was not.

It always amuses me that people pick on what Einstein thought as though he was some kind of guru who could not be wrong. Yes, he was the greatest genius we've known, but he still made mistakes, plus, an important factor is that Einstein was very keen not to step on toes and kept his real feelings to himself, which is why we only now can look at what he really did think by virtue of his private correspondence.


As an atheist, are you in any way disappointed that Einstein (or Newton or Darwin) was not? Do you think that they were deluded?

No disappointment at all. They lived in a different world to me and I hold no enmity for their beliefs. Like Einstein, we are only guessing at what Darwin and Newton thought, because we can't ask them.

If they were actually theists, then they were certainly deluded.

Luckily, being in the minority of people in the world who don't believe in god/s, I figured out very early on that what anyone else believes is no consequence to me.


I don't know why you have to refer to fairies, the Loch Ness monster, alien crop circles, and Bigfoot, except to take a cheap shot to equate belief in God
with belief in hoaxes. :confused:

I hold all irrational beliefs to be equal.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Atheist,
Thanks for your responses, and let me say that I really don't think we disagree on fundamentals. I agree that Einstein did not believe in a "theistic" God (a redundancy?), which is to say a "Personal" God that interfered in the day to day events of the Universe. I think that I believe in the same God that Einstein believed in, which is to say a Creator of the Universe, a Being that created matter, energy, and the laws of nature. In that sense, God is the "Designer" of the universe, but we don't have to believe that God micromanaged the "Design" of living things or anything else. He created the material world and the laws which decribe material behavior. In the case of material behavior, the physical laws can explain much of what we experience. There is a lot we still can't understand, and to the extent we can't, it remains mysterious. There may even be limits to what we can understand. "The unviverse may not only be stranger than we think; it may be stranger than we can think."

There are two ways for honest scientists to deal with the limits of our undertanding of the Universe. One approach is to postulate the existence of an omniscient inscrutable Creator who made the world and its laws and set it in motion (this is the Spinozan/Deist approach). The other approach is that of the atheist, who forgoes a Creator and assumes that the Universe just came into being. You can't prove or disprove either approach.:eek:

[The Comedian]

Science is a methodology, it is a tool, not a way of belief.

Oh, I'm fairly certain that science is in part a "belief" -- ultimately, you simply have to believe in the methodology. Faith in the scientific method as a truth-getting device is an essential lens to scientific insight.

[Babbalanja]

Oh, I'm fairly certain that science is in part a "belief" -- ultimately, you simply have to believe in the methodology. Faith in the scientific method as a truth-getting device is an essential lens to scientific insight.
This annoys me every time someone brings it up.

If we talk about faith in the scientific method, we mean something very different from faith in religion. I'm not trying to say one's better than the other. It's not a matter of degree, they're fundamentally different.

We say we know things through scientific inquiry because we understand its basis. Empirical research has illuminated many former mysteries of our universe. We affirm the validity of the scientific method because of the consistency and intelligibility of its results: everyone understands what we mean when we say we know the Earth orbits the Sun, even if technically that's an oversimplification of astronomical research.

Religious faith is completely different. In religion, we have faith in deities or forces that by definition can't be understood. We can't point to the efficacy of religion in any objective way, because there's no consistent definition for a term like God or soul.

Trying to conflate these two very different concepts is futile and counter-productive. Let's keep them separate.

Regards,

Istvan

[The Atheist]

Atheist,
Thanks for your responses, and let me say that I really don't think we disagree on fundamentals. I agree that Einstein did not believe in a "theistic" God (a redundancy?), which is to say a "Personal" God that interfered in the day to day events of the Universe. I think that I believe in the same God that Einstein believed in, which is to say a Creator of the Universe, a Being that created matter, energy, and the laws of nature. In that sense, God is the "Designer" of the universe, but we don't have to believe that God micromanaged the "Design" of living things or anything else. He created the material world and the laws which decribe material behavior. In the case of material behavior, the physical laws can explain much of what we experience. There is a lot we still can't understand, and to the extent we can't, it remains mysterious. There may even be limits to what we can understand. "The unviverse may not only be stranger than we think; it may be stranger than we can think."

There are two ways for honest scientists to deal with the limits of our undertanding of the Universe. One approach is to postulate the existence of an omniscient inscrutable Creator who made the world and its laws and set it in motion (this is the Spinozan/Deist approach). The other approach is that of the atheist, who forgoes a Creator and assumes that the Universe just came into being. You can't prove or disprove either approach.:eek:

Well said.

It's a popular, and as you say, unprovable (and untestable) hypothesis. It's to the world's great detriment that some where along the line USA changed from a deist society at the time of the founding fathers to the christian one it is now. I know a surprising [to me] number of people who'd agreed with you 100%. My own dad was always the believer in the inscrutable "supreme being" without wanting a personal god.

I'm not knocking it, but the question I always have to the approach is simply, what's the point? A god creates the universe, then what? I guess it suits a zen-like philosophy, but it seems to me to be an easy way out. If a god has no presence or effect in the physical universe, what, exactly, is there to believe in?

Still, I will admit that that type of god needs a lot less cash than the other one!

;)


This annoys me every time someone brings it up.

..../

Trying to conflate these two very different concepts is futile and counter-productive. Let's keep them separate.

Regards,

Istvan

:thumbs_up

Wait until you've been hearing it for 40 years, you get past annoyed and into completely disgusted.

[The Comedian]

:thumbs_up

Wait until you've been hearing it for 40 years, you get past annoyed and into completely disgusted.

I'm sorry if my ideas disgust/annoy you both. I'll refrain from posting any honest inquiry here, lest I annoy or disgust you further.

Apologies,

The Comedian.

[The Atheist]

I'm sorry if my ideas disgust/annoy you both. I'll refrain from posting any honest inquiry here, lest I annoy or disgust you further.

Apologies,

The Comedian.

It wasn't intended as a slight on you - I think you've just got it somewhat wrong.

It's when people deliberately mislead that I get disgusted. I don't think you do that.

[Gladys]

Oh, I'm fairly certain that science is in part a "belief" -- ultimately, you simply have to believe in the methodology. Faith in the scientific method as a truth-getting device is an essential lens to scientific insight.

If by belief or faith, we mean a degree of confidence in scientific models of the physical world around us, Science surely offer more than any God.

However, if by belief or faith, we choose to mean: a vital commitment that defines how I choose to live each moment of my three score and ten years on this earth, then such devotion – whether to Science, God or something else - surely matters a great deal; at least it matters to me. Although, in this case - for this meaning of truth - Science offers a pittance.

While I can believe evolution happens, I can't believe in it.

[The Atheist]

If by belief or faith, we mean a degree of confidence in scientific models of the physical world around us, Science surely offer more than any God.

However, if by belief or faith, we choose to mean: a vital commitment that defines how I choose to live each moment of my three score and ten years on this earth, then such devotion – whether to Science, God or something else - surely matters a great deal; at least it matters to me. Although, in this case - for this meaning of truth - Science offers a pittance.

Science doesn't actually offer anything, and how can it?

It isn't a doctrine, but a form of investigation and nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of life.


While I can believe evolution happens, I can't believe in it.

That's a contradiction. What is there to believe in besides the facts of evolution, which you already believe? You cannot get philosophical answers from biology.

[Babbalanja]

Although, in this case - for this meaning of truth - Science offers a pittance.

I'm not sure how much more religion offers, despite its claim to a monopoly on people's inner beings and longing for capital-T truth.

The least we can say about science is that it has a built-in corrective mechanism in its emphasis on testing. Ideas are constantly refined, and ones that don't stand up to testing are discarded. I've never heard anyone say something like: The geocentric model of the universe wasn't literally true, but it provided inspiration throughout humankind when people believed it.

On the other hand, religious beliefs can't be tested for reliability or coherence, yet we somehow feel that they fulfill our need for intuitive, pre-rational commitment. They supposedly speak to our soul, not our mind.

If you ask me, they merely feed Homo Sap's boundless appetite for delusion and pander to his inflated sense of self-worth.

Regards,

Istvan

[The Atheist]

If you ask me, they merely feed Homo Sap's boundless appetite for delusion and pander to his inflated sense of self-worth.

Regards,

Istvan

Oscar Wilde once said that brevity is the soul of wit,

You are clearly a bloody genius!

[Nick Capozzoli]

I'm not knocking it, but the question I always have to the approach is simply, what's the point? A god creates the universe, then what? I guess it suits a zen-like philosophy, but it seems to me to be an easy way out. If a god has no presence or effect in the physical universe, what, exactly, is there to believe in?

What's the point is an excellent question, i.e. is there any advantage to believing in a Spinozan/Einsteinian Creator vs being an atheist? For me there is a difference. That was the point of Einstein's ststement that science without religion was blind and religion without science was lame. You have a different attitude towards the world if you believe it was created by a supreme being than you do if you don't believe that. I think that if you believe the universe just came into being without a creator it's easier for you to become very arrogant about your place in the universe. You may realize that you didn't create the world, but, thanks to your evolved mental abilities you develop a god-like sense that you can understand and manipulate nature. Modern science has allowed us to do a lot of that lately.

I'm not saying that you must believe in God to behave morally, or that being religious assures moral behavior. There have been atrocities committed in the name of religion as well as in the name of science (e.g. eugenics. An atheist scientist can be a compassionate humanitarian, but there is nothing in science that demands compassion. There is no morality in evolution by natural selection. Darwin himself fretted over the apparent "immorality" and "horror" of insect parasitism. The movie, Alien nicely captures this horror.

There are philosophical ways to develop morality and ethics outside of a framework of religious belief, based on practical and empirical/scientific approaches to human existence. Just read Kant, Hegel, Witgenstein, and whole bunch of others. It just seems a lot easier to develop a compassionate, "humane," and humble morality if you believe that a Supreme Being created the Universe.:wave:

[Babbalanja]

I think that if you believe the universe just came into being without a creator it's easier for you to become very arrogant about your place in the universe. More arrogant than believing that there's a Supreme Being in the universe who adores Homo Sap above all His creations?

More arrogant than believing that we can understand the motives and methods of this Being, and influence His actions by wishing really hard?

More arrogant than persecuting other people for the lack of or difference in their belief about this Being, and excusing our cruelty by saying the Being told us to?

No, I'd say believers have the market cornered on arrogance.

Regards,

Istvan

[The Atheist]

There are philosophical ways to develop morality and ethics outside of a framework of religious belief, based on practical and empirical/scientific approaches to human existence. Just read Kant, Hegel, Witgenstein, and whole bunch of others. It just seems a lot easier to develop a compassionate, "humane," and humble morality if you believe that a Supreme Being created the Universe.:wave:

Just in case anyone thinks this is off-topic, I'd note that it isn't, because while they're different types of evolution, the evolution of human morality is obviously linked to evolution of the species. We're here, aren't we?

I'd also claim that evolution of humans as a species is partly due to our morality, because we have unquestionably changed our animalian evolution be design of that morality.

I find it hard to accept your idea. (as does Babbalanja :) )

Do we have evidence for the proposal?

It seems to me that the ever-changing morality theists have given us has contained some pretty horrible stuff, and that many religious groups still practice bigotry against gays, women and other religions, all on the basis of that theistic morality.

Deism is a different proposition, and while I won't deny your proposition for them, I'd wonder what their morality would look like. With religion, it has the handy advantage of being societal, bringing people together to teach. Where do deists gather to discuss morality? And when they have discussed it, why would a non-interventionist god be of use? ince it doesn't interact with the universe, wouldn't designing a morality compatible with it just be creating a god in one's own image?

On the other hand, humanists, who I admire greatly, but am far too radical to ever be part of, have developed a morality which is compatible with Jesus and deism without recourse to anything more than common decency.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Just in case anyone thinks this is off-topic, I'd note that it isn't, because while they're different types of evolution, the evolution of human morality is obviously linked to evolution of the species. We're here, aren't we?

I'd also claim that evolution of humans as a species is partly due to our morality, because we have unquestionably changed our animalian evolution be design of that morality.

I find it hard to accept your idea. (as does Babbalanja :) )

Do we have evidence for the proposal?

It seems to me that the ever-changing morality theists have given us has contained some pretty horrible stuff, and that many religious groups still practice bigotry against gays, women and other religions, all on the basis of that theistic morality.

Deism is a different proposition, and while I won't deny your proposition for them, I'd wonder what their morality would look like. With religion, it has the handy advantage of being societal, bringing people together to teach. Where do deists gather to discuss morality? And when they have discussed it, why would a non-interventionist god be of use? ince it doesn't interact with the universe, wouldn't designing a morality compatible with it just be creating a god in one's own image?

On the other hand, humanists, who I admire greatly, but am far too radical to ever be part of, have developed a morality which is compatible with Jesus and deism without recourse to anything more than common decency.

Thanks for these excellent ideas. Yes, morality does seem to be something that evolved along with our consciousness. Maybe belief in God is something that also evolved, as did our other mental abilities, including scientific reasoning. In fact it's fair to say that everything about us evolved.

Babbalanja's comments about arrogance were not helpful and to me seem glib, dismissive, and...arrogant. My point was that scientists can be very arrogant. Most religions encourage believers to view themselves as humble before a supreme and inscrutable creator. Many horrible and inhuman things have been done in the name of religion over the course of human history. But religion has no monopoly on arrogance and inhumanity. I mentioned eugenic theory, which is just one aspect of "Social Darwinism."

I suppose that I am a "Humanist." Is belief in God necessary for a Humanist?

I think you are right when you say that belief in a non-interventionist, (i.e. a Deist God, leads to creating God in ones own image (a nice reversal of the theist idea that God created man in His own image). But this is quite different from the atheist position, that I think leads to an amoral view of nature.

Let's consider just one example of how a religious and atheist scientist would deal with a medical/scientific situation. Down Syndrome is a not uncommon medical disorder. We understand the genetic basis for this disorder. We can make the diagnosis in utero, and we can chose to abort a fetus that carries the genetic disorder, if we want.

The natural history of a person born with Down Syndrome is dismal. Mental retardation (low IQ), short life span (40 years or so), and guaranteed medical problems (heart defects and progressive dementia on top of the mental retardation). Everything associated with this disorder would logically prompt a "scientist" to chose to either abort a Down's Syndrome fetus or even to euthanize it at birth. Why would anyone even think of letting such an individual to be born or survive for any period of time?

Well, there is no reason unless you believe that all human life is sacred. Would you believe that all human life is sacred if you did not believe in a creator? I don't think so.

That's only half the story.

[blazeofglory]

One point I want to raise here is while I am not sure whether or not God exists in point of fact and there is nothing to approve or disapprove of this fact with we mortals, and our thinking and imaginative faculties too are limited and we are simply three dimensional beings. What we brag about consciousness is also confined within our environmental peripheries and our ideas cannot transcend these edges. What we know about God, heaven, immortality, afterlife and the like stems from what we read in scriptural texts or we learn from our elders or Gurus. This in point of fact is the base on which we build our ideas and ideologies with regard to God. We have, therefore no authority on these subtle subjects.

Yet we all know that our society has harmony and that said I do believe that our ideals and ideologies are at times as week as castle on sand and people advocating religions are turning fundamentalists and they have done more damages to us, and we know Hitler in history who have subjected so many people to tortures and holocausts, and now we are not unaware of the growing world of fundamentalists whether it is in Christianity, or Islam or Hinduism.

Notwithstanding all these truths I still strongly hold the belief that belief in God or religion or immortality have helped humanity more than without them. If this may not be relevant in many countries, particularly in developed countries at least in underdeveloped countries or societies belief in God or religion or immortality have helped humanity and kept people from committing sins.

I know so many people here take extreme views. If they are atheists they become dogmatically become so and so are the so called theists too. Let us think objectively, disinterestedly without bias religion and belief in God is not as bad as some people think and as a matter of fact these people canonize their ideas and hold them as sacred. I never become rigid personally for what I believe to be true may be proved false tomorrows. We do not want to listen to others and we very adamantly hook ourselves to sets of ideologies whether it is spirituality or materialism and with this pre-determined and unswerving mindset people become diehards or dogmatists no matter what convincing ideas they come across they become too much principled or preoccupied with their rigid ideas.

[The Atheist]

Thanks for these excellent ideas. Yes, morality does seem to be something that evolved along with our consciousness. Maybe belief in God is something that also evolved, as did our other mental abilities, including scientific reasoning. In fact it's fair to say that everything about us evolved.

Yep. There's no doubt that religion has helped societal cohesion and when societies prefer to kill other societies, cohesion is a valuable evolutionary tool.


I suppose that I am a "Humanist." Is belief in God necessary for a Humanist?

Generally, humanists are agnostic or atheist, probably leaning towards a majority of agnostics.


Let's consider just one example of how a religious and atheist scientist would deal with a medical/scientific situation. Down Syndrome is a not uncommon medical disorder. We understand the genetic basis for this disorder. We can make the diagnosis in utero, and we can chose to abort a fetus that carries the genetic disorder, if we want.

The natural history of a person born with Down Syndrome is dismal. Mental retardation (low IQ), short life span (40 years or so), and guaranteed medical problems (heart defects and progressive dementia on top of the mental retardation). Everything associated with this disorder would logically prompt a "scientist" to chose to either abort a Down's Syndrome fetus or even to euthanize it at birth. Why would anyone even think of letting such an individual to be born or survive for any period of time?

Well, there is no reason unless you believe that all human life is sacred. Would you believe that all human life is sacred if you did not believe in a creator? I don't think so.

That's only half the story.

Excellent point on Down Syndrome, and pretty topical to me as we've just had a baby and with my wife being almost the dreaded 40, her chances of a Down baby were increased.

We had already decided that if it turned out to be a Down foetus that it would be aborted for exactly the reasons you stated.

Luckily, it wasn't.

[OrphanPip]

Although I am for abortion, I am disturbed by the idea that any fetus is superior to another in some objective fashion. A baby with Down's Syndrome likely has just as good a chance as any other baby to live a happy life, what we're really looking at here is how that baby's existence affects our lives. People don't choose to abort fetuses with Down's for the sake of the future child, but for themselves.

That behavior can easily be extended to aborting a fetus for having brown hair, being gay, not tall enough, or not smart enough. When do we draw the line that a certain type of person is allowed to live?

[Nick Capozzoli]

Excellent point on Down Syndrome, and pretty topical to me as we've just had a baby and with my wife being almost the dreaded 40, her chances of a Down baby were increased.

We had already decided that if it turned out to be a Down foetus that it would be aborted for exactly the reasons you stated.

Luckily, it wasn't.

Congratulations on your baby, and thank God (or chance) that you didn't have to make such a difficult decision.


Although I am for abortion, I am disturbed by the idea that any fetus is superior to another in some objective fashion. A baby with Down's Syndrome likely has just as good a chance as any other baby to live a happy life, what we're really looking at here is how that baby's existence affects our lives. People don't choose to abort fetuses with Down's for the sake of the future child, but for themselves.

Babies with Down Syndrome have a tough and generally short life ahead of them. One thing you are right about is that they seem to have "happy," loving, and guileless personalities, which is something quite remarkable about this condition. I've often wondered about this: it is as if the genetic disorder somehow affected the personality in positive ways, despite the hardships it creates, which you might think would lead to sociopathy in those afflicted with it. Sociopathy and other severe personality disorders rs extremely rare in Down Syndrome. This is one reason why parents of Down Syndrome children have such a hard time giving them up for institutional care.

I think you are too hard on parents who chose to abort a Down Syndrome baby. Sure, they are thinking of their own hardship, but they are also thinking of the hardship their child will face, not the least being worry of who will care for him when they die (since most parents of Down's babies are in their 40's and the life expectancy of DS is around 40 years, the chances are good that the parents will be elderly or dead before the child himself dies).

I chose this example to discuss because of the difficult moral issues it presents.

[OrphanPip]

Babies with Down Syndrome have a tough and generally short life ahead of them. One thing you are right about is that they seem to have "happy," loving, and guileless personalities, which is something quite remarkable about this condition. I've often wondered about this: it is as if the genetic disorder somehow affected the personality in positive ways, despite the hardships it creates, which you might think would lead to sociopathy in those afflicted with it. Sociopathy and other severe personality disorders rs extremely rare in Down Syndrome. This is one reason why parents of Down Syndrome children have such a hard time giving them up for institutional care.

I think you are too hard on parents who chose to abort a Down Syndrome baby. Sure, they are thinking of their own hardship, but they are also thinking of the hardship their child will face, not the least being worry of who will care for him when they die (since most parents of Down's babies are in their 40's and the life expectancy of DS is around 40 years, the chances are good that the parents will be elderly or dead before the child himself dies).

I chose this example to discuss because of the difficult moral issues it presents.

That's fair enough, but can life for these individuals ever be so hard that it was no longer worth living. Human beings seem to have a capacity to live through almost any hardship and still choose life over death, it seems we as individuals value living over not-living under almost any condition.

I can understand aborting a fetus with Cri-Du-Chat, that will kill them within a couple years and most of their lives will be pure agony and they will never learn to speak or interact with the world. DS individuals however are capable of working and living on their own, there are many programs that set up work for them and group homes where they are safe.

Now I don't mean to be so harsh on parents who choose to abort a DS fetus, it is an understandably difficult decision. I'm just put off by these sort of selection processes for fetuses.

[The Atheist]

Although I am for abortion, I am disturbed by the idea that any fetus is superior to another in some objective fashion.

Then how can you be "for abortion"?

What is abortion ever but a choice made by parents for reasons which are usually selfish?

Many abortions are done because of the financial situation of the parent/s or because an unexpected pregnancy happens.


A baby with Down's Syndrome likely has just as good a chance as any other baby to live a happy life, what we're really looking at here is how that baby's existence affects our lives. People don't choose to abort fetuses with Down's for the sake of the future child, but for themselves.

I disagree.

I know several parents of Down children and I don't believe those kids have a quality life. They are unable to do more than the most menial of tasks and are trapped in poverty unless they come from wealthy families.

I also consider that the time spent on a DS child would be hugely detrimental to my other kids.


That behavior can easily be extended to aborting a fetus for having brown hair, being gay, not tall enough, or not smart enough. When do we draw the line that a certain type of person is allowed to live?

We don't.

If abortion is legal, I don't think parents are asked to justify their reasons, so we don't know that some are being aborted for being the wrong sex anyway.

If we start introducing a list of "valid" reasons for abortions, it would defeat the object of it being a woman's right.

[OrphanPip]

Then how can you be "for abortion"?


I never said I supported restrictions on abortion, I just said I was bothered by the long term implications for selection of individuals, and the reasons behind them.

Is it so outrageous to ask people to consider their reasons for getting an abortion before having one? Abortion in itself I do not consider to be wrong, but when we guide our reasons for it through bias and prejudice then we are allowing something wrong to influence our decisions.

[The Atheist]

I never said I supported restrictions on abortion, I just said I was bothered by the long term implications for selection of individuals, and the reasons behind them.

Now I'm really lost.

I meant this comment:


Although I am for abortion, I am disturbed by the idea that any fetus is superior to another in some objective fashion.

I took that to mean you supported women's rights to have abortion.


Is it so outrageous to ask people to consider their reasons for getting an abortion before having one? Abortion in itself I do not consider to be wrong, but when we guide our reasons for it through bias and prejudice then we are allowing something wrong to influence our decisions.

This seems a contradiction to me.

Pro-abortion people almost exclusively consider abortion a woman's right, and as such, I don't think divisions in reasons for abortion are appropriate. Any abortion is done for reasons which may be - and probably are - subject to individual biases and influences.

Who has the right to decide which reasons are "right" and "wrong"?


Congratulations on your baby, and thank God (or chance) that you didn't have to make such a difficult decision.

Thanks!

As always, it's about the maths. My wife's chances of DS were about 1 in 200, which was lengthened to 1 in 2500 with a nucal fold ultrasound. Amnioscentesis can give you a 100% answer, but as the process iteself involves a 1% chance of miscarriage, we just played the odds that said it was 25 times more dangerous to have amnio than wait & see.

With the odds, it would have been a major surprise if something was wrong, but we were certainly still very happy to see a "normal" baby!

[Babbalanja]

I regret that this discussion has devolved into a debate on abortion. I have my own strong feelings on the issue, but arguing this matter online is truly nothing more than a slapfight for moral high ground. Discussing eugenics is the most efficient way for believers to portray non-believers as callous and amoral, without having to engage in anything more intellectual than moralistic sloganeering.

Despite Nick's reservations, I stand by what I said about believers being arrogant. I believe it's the height of presumption to put faith on a level with rational contemplation or genuine moral thinking. I think religious believers who try to put God in science are woefully misguided.

Regards,

Istvan

[OrphanPip]

I regret that this discussion has devolved into a debate on abortion. I have my own strong feelings on the issue, but arguing this matter online is truly nothing more than a slapfight for moral high ground. Discussing eugenics is the most efficient way for believers to portray non-believers as callous and amoral, without having to engage in anything more intellectual than moralistic sloganeering.

Despite Nick's reservations, I stand by what I said about believers being arrogant. I believe it's the height of presumption to put faith on a level with rational contemplation or genuine moral thinking. I think religious believers who try to put God in science are woefully misguided.

Regards,

Istvan

Where did I bring God into anything, I don't believe in God, goddesses, or any higher being in any which way. I am an atheist and have never belonged to any religious institution in my entire life.

Pro-abortion legally is exclusively a woman's right, however there is no need to conflate that with an argument about the morality of it. I don't think fetuses are human beings, I don't think they have moral rights in and of themselves. What I think is morally wrong is to take decisions based on prejudice that excludes certain types of individuals from existing. It is no different from refusing a job to someone for no other reason than they being part of some minority group. This all hinges on whether one believes groups can have moral status, and that they have a right to exist.

i.e.

Aborting a baby because of some trait you find icky = wrong
Aborting a baby because of financial limitations, rape, personal inability to raise any sort of baby. etc. = permissible

[Nick Capozzoli]

Abortion in itself I do not consider to be wrong, but when we guide our reasons for it through bias and prejudice then we are allowing something wrong to influence our decisions.

But how do you decide that abortion is chosen through "bias and prejudice?" It is a choice, and one choses to act for reasons. Except for purely reflexive acts that seem to avoid "choice" (and this is arguable), every willed act involves conscious or unconscious choices. One could argue that all choice involves bias and prejudice.

[OrphanPip]

But how do you decide that abortion is chosen through "bias and prejudice?" It is a choice, and one choses to act for reasons. Except for purely reflexive acts that seem to avoid "choice" (and this is arguable), every willed act involves conscious or unconscious choices. One could argue that all choice involves bias and prejudice.

I'm not speaking in legal terms. In practicality I support the full autonomous choice of individual women, because it is the only way to ensure a free choice by the woman and it is her body that is at issue.

That being said, certainly unconscious bias plays a part in the decisions of individuals, but that isn't to say people shouldn't make a conscious effort to avoid making decisions on prejudice. At the least through self reflection one can help mitigate the probability of making overtly prejudicial decisions.

[Babbalanja]

Let us think objectively, disinterestedly without bias religion and belief in God is not as bad as some people think and as a matter of fact these people canonize their ideas and hold them as sacred. I never become rigid personally for what I believe to be true may be proved false tomorrows. We do not want to listen to others and we very adamantly hook ourselves to sets of ideologies whether it is spirituality or materialism and with this pre-determined and unswerving mindset people become diehards or dogmatists no matter what convincing ideas they come across they become too much principled or preoccupied with their rigid ideas.It's all well and fine to complain about people being trapped in their rigid ideas, but let's keep our wits about us. Is it unreasonably dogmatic to say that we know the Earth orbits the Sun? Are we being closed-minded by calling anyone that denies species evolution wrong?

I'm trying to demonstrate that there are certain things that aren't really matters of opinion. Through a cumulative historical process of empirical evidential inquiry, we're in a position to make pronouncements about reality that it's folly to deny. We don't believe DNA is the basis of heredity because it makes us feel good to believe it, we do so because of the evidence from many avenues of research.

I for one am fed up with being characterized as dogmatic for expecting people to present evidence for the beliefs they express in public, or not to express them at all. Religious people should expect their beliefs to be scrutinized and criticized like every other claim in society. And if their ideas are found wanting, they should stop making it sound like they're the victims of materialist dogmatism and face up to the fact that such beliefs should be kept in private where they belong.

Regards,

Istvan

[The Atheist]

I for one am fed up with being characterized as dogmatic for expecting people to present evidence for the beliefs they express in public, or not to express them at all. Religious people should expect their beliefs to be scrutinized and criticized like every other claim in society. And if their ideas are found wanting, they should stop making it sound like they're the victims of materialist dogmatism and face up to the fact that such beliefs should be kept in private where they belong.

Regards,

Istvan

Couldn't agree more.

The persecution syndrome fits the theology though. They were expecting it all along.

;)

[JuniperWoolf]

It isn't anything. Mutations happen through the interaction of viruses or other influence and either turn out to be beneficial or not. Beneficial ones survive and prosper, others die out.

Because only the strong survive, it tends to look like a goal-based system, but that's an incorrect way of seeing it. It just is.

I'm glad that you explained that. I've been saying the same thing over and over and over again for the last six years to both people who believe in creationism AND people who believe in evolution but have no idea how natural selection works. Things just are, there's no better than or worse than, there's just fit for a certain environment and unfit. Unfit could be fit in other circumstances.

My issue with evolution is, as you and I have already discussed, that evolution is not an alternative to creationism because evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. In order for evolution to work, there has to be a pre-existing species for natural selection to work on. Abiogenisis is the REAL alternative to creationism, and every theory that I've read about abiogenisis has been extreamly stupid and based on very flimsy evidence. So the whole "Creationism VS. Evolution" debate is silly, because evolution isn't a foil of creationism. Evolution doesn't even disprove religion, it just disproves the christian creation myth that everything was made as-is. Evolution and intelligent design could co-exist.

Creationism is a cop-out, and so is abiogenisis. I very strongly believe that both are wrong. However life on this planet originated, we have absolutely no idea. If I were a betting girl, I'd put my money on aliens. :alien:

[OrphanPip]

Creationism is a cop-out, and so is abiogenisis. I very strongly believe that both are wrong. However life on this planet originated, we have absolutely no idea. If I were a betting girl, I'd put my money on aliens. :alien:

Aliens is a bigger cop-out than abiogenesis, you're just shifting the question to where the alien life first came into existence.

Abiogenesis is not a cop-out because it involves at least an attempt to experimentally demonstrate the possibility of chemical evolution. There is substantive research going on in this field, with a number of researches trying to generate proto-cells, and then Craig Venter is working on a project to gradually decrease the genes in a prokaryotic cell to find the base requirements for a functioning cell. Most of the main hypotheses of abiogenesis involve sound arguments that make a lot more sense than an old man in the sky or a unicorn fart starting life.

Excluding wackjobs like Lovelock and his Gaia hypothesis.

[JuniperWoolf]

Aliens is a bigger cop-out than abiogenesis, you're just shifting the question to where the alien life first came into existence.

I was joking.



Abiogenesis is not a cop-out because it involves at least an attempt to experimentally demonstrate the possibility of chemical evolution. There is substantive research going on in this field, with a number of researches trying to generate proto-cells, and then Craig Venter is working on a project to gradually decrease the genes in a prokaryotic cell to find the base requirements for a functioning cell. Most of the main hypotheses of abiogenesis involve sound arguments that make a lot more sense than an old man in the sky or a unicorn fart starting life.

Yes it is a cop-out, because even though they are ATTEMPTING to obtain evidence, they ACTUALLY HAVE zippo. Coming up with a theory that's based on nothing is not science. Actually, it sound a whole lot like faith. I know all about abiogenisis experiments that attempt to re-create the origin of life, there's one going on two floors up from my labs at the University of Alberta. So far they've obtained absolutely no evidence, and my prof believes that they're wasting their time (not to mention a whole lot of our money). All of the biology profs whose lectures I've attended or who I've worked with have basically told me that all of the current abiogenisis theories are almost definately crap, and that however life originated we don't have a clue. We're ignorant, neither science nor religion even comes close to answering all of life's big questions. People who pretend that they know everything because their ideas have a big label on them that reads "SCIENCE" are delusional (not to mention pretty un-scientific).

[OrphanPip]

Yes it is a cop-out, because even though they are ATTEMPTING to obtain evidence, they ACTUALLY HAVE zippo. Coming up with a theory that's based on nothing is not science. Actually, it sound a whole lot like faith. I know all about abiogenisis experiments that attempt to re-create the origin of life, there's one going on two floors up from my labs at the University of Alberta. So far they've obtained absolutely no evidence, and my prof believes that they're wasting their time (not to mention a whole lot of our money). All of the biology profs whose lectures I've attended or who I've worked with have basically told me that all of the current abiogenisis theories are almost definately crap, and that however life originated we don't have a clue. We're ignorant, neither science nor religion even comes close to answering all of life's big questions. People who pretend that they know everything because their ideas have a big label on them that reads "SCIENCE" are delusional (not to mention pretty un-scientific).

First of all, abiogenesis is not a theory, it is something that must of happened unless you want to bring in supernatural causes. The hypotheses that attempt to explain abiogenesis are not acknowledged by anyone to be anything more than possible explanations. The fact that these hypotheses are at least testable and hinge on possible evidence makes them superior than any propositions of divine intervention. It is absurd to just shut off a line of inquiry because you believe it to be a dead-end.

[Babbalanja]

People who pretend that they know everything because their ideas have a big label on them that reads "SCIENCE" are delusional (not to mention pretty un-scientific).Straw man alert!

I don't know any scientifically-minded people who claim to know everything. In fact, they're honest about realizing how much there is left to know. Inductive reasoning emphasizes the effect of new information on the theories we hold dear, so scientific inquiry only ever claims to be provisionally reliable. As has been said already, nothing is ever proven scientifically.

This stands in rather marked contrast to religious faith, which claims to know a lot of things that are mere fantasy on no better grounds than that the believer believes very strongly in them.

What were you saying about "delusional"?

Regards,

Istvan

[The Atheist]

Creationism is a cop-out, and so is abiogenisis. I very strongly believe that both are wrong. However life on this planet originated, we have absolutely no idea. If I were a betting girl, I'd put my money on aliens. :alien:

Well, you know what they say about unfounded beliefs...

I'll ask then; if creationism, abiogenesis and aliens are all false, what other option is there.

We know that life arose, and the choices are supernatural or natural. If natural, there was clearly some process which started it.

I think you might mean, "current abiogenesis theories are rubbish".



Most of the main hypotheses of abiogenesis involve sound arguments that make a lot more sense than an old man in the sky or a unicorn fart starting life.

Excluding wackjobs like Lovelock and his Gaia hypothesis.

Wish I knew what happened to Lovelock. He must've gone mad at some stage. Probably a woman....


Yes it is a cop-out, because even though they are ATTEMPTING to obtain evidence, they ACTUALLY HAVE zippo. Coming up with a theory that's based on nothing is not science. Actually, it sound a whole lot like faith. I know all about abiogenisis experiments that attempt to re-create the origin of life, there's one going on two floors up from my labs at the University of Alberta. So far they've obtained absolutely no evidence, and my prof believes that they're wasting their time (not to mention a whole lot of our money). All of the biology profs whose lectures I've attended or who I've worked with have basically told me that all of the current abiogenisis theories are almost definately crap, and that however life originated we don't have a clue. We're ignorant, neither science nor religion even comes close to answering all of life's big questions. People who pretend that they know everything because their ideas have a big label on them that reads "SCIENCE" are delusional (not to mention pretty un-scientific).

I think you're getting several other things confused as well.

You seem to seek "evidence", yet since abiogenesis occurred some ~4 billion years ago, we can't even replicate the world of that time aside from some very broad known data. The only evidence available will be if some scientist creates life, and even then, that would be no proof that it's how life began.

I'm quite happy to say that we don't have a clue how it happened, and we may never do - just like the birth of the universe, we're starting with no data at all trying to work out a couple of the most difficult engineering problems in history.

We're trying to do the equivalent of asking a caveman to build the Hoover Dam. It's not going to be apparent overnight.

As to biology professors who claim that all current abiogenesis theories are rot, that sounds too much like professional jealousy for my liking. If they're willing to deny current research, they need to be at least offer an alternative before rubbishing others. If they don't have a competing theory, then they're very peculiar biologists. Invite them along.

[Nick Capozzoli]

As to biology professors who claim that all current abiogenesis theories are rot, that sounds too much like professional jealousy for my liking. If they're willing to deny current research, they need to be at least offer an alternative before rubbishing others. If they don't have a competing theory, then they're very peculiar biologists. Invite them along.

Yes. Abiogenesis is a logical point to begin explaining the origin of life, unless you want to assume that "life" existed from the beginning of the material universe, which to me is an unscientific approach. It's hard to imagine how life began from non-living matter, but doing so is more intellectually honest than other approaches, like the seeding of alien life from outer space. Darwin never worried about the origin of life. He "merely" concerned himself with explaining how it evolved after it came into being.

What he came up with, evolution by natural selection, is a powerful theory that explains the behavior of living things, within the limits of our current understanding of life, just as Newton's understanding of matter, force, and motion provided a powerful understanding of the universe. But neither Newton nor Darwin have the last word on the nature of the non-living and living universe, and neither addressed the origins of matter, energy, life, and the "laws" that describe them. Those who try to explain the origins of these things are dealing with a much more difficult problem.:sick:

[JuniperWoolf]

I'll ask then; if creationism, abiogenesis and aliens are all false, what other option is there.

That's just it, we don't know. Whatever the answer is, we haven’t even got the slightest grasp. That would be like Aristotle just randomly guessing the periodic table, except that the events which led to the creation of life and the universe would probably be 1000000000x more complex than that.




You seem to seek "evidence", yet since abiogenesis occurred some ~4 billion years ago, we can't even replicate the world of that time aside from some very broad known data. The only evidence available will be if some scientist creates life, and even then, that would be no proof that it's how life began.

This is pretty much exactly what I'm saying, except that you're wrong in believing that I'm seeking "evidence." It's exactly the opposite. I realize the futility of trying to discover how life and the universe came into existence. It's not going to happen. You described it perfectly when you said that this would be like asking a caveman to build the Hoover Dam. We don't have the knowledge, or the tools. We're wasting our time. When it comes to questions such as "how did life begin?" and "how was the universe created?" I have as much respect for religious hypotheses as I do for scientific ones: both are equally plausible, because both are not plausible at all. Neither is in any way superior to the other. Therefore, debate is pointless. As I've said before:


The whole "Creationism VS. Evolution" debate is silly, because evolution isn't a foil of creationism. Evolution doesn't even disprove religion, it just disproves the Christian creation myth that everything was made as-is. Evolution and intelligent design could co-exist.

[Nick Capozzoli]

This is pretty much exactly what I'm saying, except that you're wrong in believing that I'm seeking "evidence." It's exactly the opposite. I realize the futility of trying to discover how life and the universe came into existence. It's not going to happen.... We're wasting our time. When it comes to questions such as "how did life begin?" and "how was the universe created?" I have as much respect for religious hypotheses as I do for scientific ones: both are equally plausible, because both are not plausible at all. Neither is in any way superior to the other. Therefore, debate is pointless. As I've said before:

How can you be sure that we will never be able to understand how life began (from non-living matter)? Certainly the question of how the universe began (or "was created") is even more difficult, but can you prove that these things are unknowable? And even if they are unknowable as you assume, why is the pursuit "wasting our time?" It was this pursuit of understanding that led to us being able to build Hoover Dam (your example of something beyond the ability of our ancestors), along with a whole lot of other modern marvels.

And there is a difference between religious and scientific understanding of the world. Both views depend on reason and even faith. The faith part of science has to do with basic assumptions about reality (number. the nature of mass, space, time, force, cause and effect, etc). The faith part of
religion is bigger than that of science, but there is also a qualitative difference. Science allows for experiment, which is the testing of scientific explanations of the world, which allows scientists to judge the validity of their understanding (i.e., reasoning of how things came to be and work.

It would be an error to say that science is based on reason while religion is not. Both employ reason. The real difference is the attitude towards experiment, checking our reason against what is.

Aquinas and Aristotle employed reason in their arguments. Neither were
scientists. They could be called philosophers or religionists. They employed plausible and convincing arguments to explain many things, but their explanations ultimately failed to conform to scientific reality.

Today we think of science as mathematical. Certainly mathematical reasoning is a powerful tool in understanding the behavior of the universe. But mathematics is just a form of reason. It reflects the way our minds work, and may or may not reflect the way the universe works. We can never be sure that the universe follows the patterns of our reason, but a scientist accepts that we can ask questions and perform experiments to see if the universe seems to follow the patterns of our reasoning.

Pythagoras was a great mathematician, his mathematical genius advanced science, but he was not an honest scientist (or even mathematician), if the story about his followers drowning a disciple who proved the existence of irrational numbers is true. Aristosthenes, who may have been a lesser mathematical genius than Pythagoras or Euclid was a far better scientist. He used geometry to measure the circumference of a spherical earth, and his calculation was quite accurate.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Aristosthenes...

Sorry, I mis-spelled it: Eratosthenes.:)

[Babbalanja]

The faith part of science has to do with basic assumptions about reality (number. the nature of mass, space, time, force, cause and effect, etc).
It's embarrassing to see such equivocation on the word faith. If you consider the assumptions of empirical inquiry exactly the same as the credulity that feeds religious belief, I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with you more.


It would be an error to say that science is based on reason while religion is not. Both employ reason. The real difference is the attitude towards experiment, checking our reason against what is.Religion only employs reason to formulate rational-sounding excuses for beliefs that weren't arrived at through reason.

Regards,

Istvan

[Gladys]

Religion only employs reason to formulate rational-sounding excuses for beliefs that weren't arrived at through reason.

Your faith in the scope and efficacy of reason is staggering. Do feelings count for nothing?

[Dori]

how come the dominant ones haven't killed out the submissive ones? Why can some people murder without a second thought and others not be able to kill a fly?

I read this post, and while andave_ya has seemingly left the discussion, I still feel I should address this. There are several factors that influence aggression--neurobiology, hormones, environmental factors, etc. Take the case of Charles Whitman, a mass-murderer of the 1960s. After killing several people, he off-ed himself; the autopsy revealed a tumor in his amygdala. What do scientists gather from this? Maybe the amygdala has something to do with aggression...
(There's more proof behind that, by the way)

Whether you're evolutionist or creationist, everyone should be REQUIRED to learn a thing or two about the biology of human behavior. It certainly cleared a few things up for me.

[The Atheist]

Your faith in the scope and efficacy of reason is staggering. Do feelings count for nothing?

Feelings are just as material as rocks.

[Babbalanja]

Your faith in the scope and efficacy of reason is staggering. Do feelings count for nothing?
I have very strong feelings about my family, music, literature, and many other things. However, when we're talking about explanations for natural phenomena like species diversity, it's true, feelings count for nothing.

Regards,

Istvan

[Nick Capozzoli]

It's embarrassing to see such equivocation on the word faith. If you consider the assumptions of empirical inquiry exactly the same as the credulity that feeds religious belief, I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with you more.

I wasn't equivocating and my comments about faith, reason, and experiment in religion and science were reasonable. Your response doesn't address the points I made. Please read my comments and tell me where you think they are wrong.

[blazeofglory]

How can you be sure that we will never be able to understand how life began (from non-living matter)? Certainly the question of how the universe began (or "was created") is even more difficult, but can you prove that these things are unknowable? And even if they are unknowable as you assume, why is the pursuit "wasting our time?" It was this pursuit of understanding that led to us being able to build Hoover Dam (your example of something beyond the ability of our ancestors), along with a whole lot of other modern marvels.

And there is a difference between religious and scientific understanding of the world. Both views depend on reason and even faith. The faith part of science has to do with basic assumptions about reality (number. the nature of mass, space, time, force, cause and effect, etc). The faith part of
religion is bigger than that of science, but there is also a qualitative difference. Science allows for experiment, which is the testing of scientific explanations of the world, which allows scientists to judge the validity of their understanding (i.e., reasoning of how things came to be and work.

It would be an error to say that science is based on reason while religion is not. Both employ reason. The real difference is the attitude towards experiment, checking our reason against what is.

Aquinas and Aristotle employed reason in their arguments. Neither were
scientists. They could be called philosophers or religionists. They employed plausible and convincing arguments to explain many things, but their explanations ultimately failed to conform to scientific reality.

Today we think of science as mathematical. Certainly mathematical reasoning is a powerful tool in understanding the behavior of the universe. But mathematics is just a form of reason. It reflects the way our minds work, and may or may not reflect the way the universe works. We can never be sure that the universe follows the patterns of our reason, but a scientist accepts that we can ask questions and perform experiments to see if the universe seems to follow the patterns of our reasoning.

Pythagoras was a great mathematician, his mathematical genius advanced science, but he was not an honest scientist (or even mathematician), if the story about his followers drowning a disciple who proved the existence of irrational numbers is true. Aristosthenes, who may have been a lesser mathematical genius than Pythagoras or Euclid was a far better scientist. He used geometry to measure the circumference of a spherical earth, and his calculation was quite accurate.

You are right to a considerable point and not after that. For what we know thru science today is phenomena on a micro level and beyond that the universe remains a mystery. This length and breadth of this cosmos is immeasurable and what time is something indefinable and we have no instruments to gauge all this. There are zillions of galaxies and all with uncountable numbers of stars.

Of course we keep on exploring into the depths of the cosmos and will indeed do something more than what today we have like the Internet, Cellphones and the likes of them.

I of course science thru ages have done something our ancestors could not dream of even and which could not come to their wildest imaginations. But all this does not indicate the world can be fully explored. The deeper the explorations will go the vaster the cosmos may appear to us and we kind of will completely remain in the same state of unknowability or mystery as we are now even after a thousand years.

If think science can explore the fathoms or the mystery of the universe and I may think science cannot and this debate will go eternally and there is no midpoint at which we can meet and agree.

[Babbalanja]

I wasn't equivocating and my comments about faith, reason, and experiment in religion and science were reasonable. Your response doesn't address the points I made. Please read my comments and tell me where you think they are wrong.Nick, I addressed your puerile notion that anything is faith if it's something we're not 100% absolutely certain about. There's no such thing as this kind of certainty. Talking about faith as it applies to empirical evidential inquiry is is self-defeating, and is only done by people desperate to denigrate the scientific perspective.

Regards,

Istvan

[JuniperWoolf]

I have very strong feelings about my family, music, literature, and many other things. However, when we're talking about explanations for natural phenomena like species diversity, it's true, feelings count for nothing.


:lol: If you believe that, then you have a very limited grasp of biology. Emotion has nothing to do with species diversity? I don't mean to be rude, but that's very silly. EVERYTHING relating to life is the result of natural selection. Both emotion and species diversity are obvious examples. Natural selection acting on emotion leads to species diversity, allowing complex organisms to even exist in the first place. "Feelings count for nothing?" That's a laugh. Without emotion (fear to remind us to flee from predators, happiness to tell us that something is good for us, sexual desire to incite procreation, etc.) there would be no complex organisms, and therefore very little species diversity. Feelings are really ALL that matter. Feelings are what drive the scientist to ask questions in the first place. They're also what get us out of bed in the morning.

This is just my opinion, but you seem to be ignorantly biased against anything that you percieve as "non-scientific." You might want to try to get over that. This same stupid mindset drove the eugenicists, and also the behaviorists. Historically, steadfast closed mindedness has really set science back (not to mention the human species as a whole).

[billl]

Nick, I addressed your puerile notion that anything is faith if it's something we're not 100% absolutely certain about. There's no such thing as this kind of certainty. Talking about faith as it applies to empirical evidential inquiry is is self-defeating, and is only done by people desperate to denigrate the scientific perspective.

Regards,

Istvan

I don't think Nick needs the help, but:

self-defeating?

The word "faith" would probably appear as a great insult if a combative approach were one's main habit in these matters, but that is by no means the only reasonable perspective from which to see the word, or approach the discussion. I think someone interested in promoting the scientific perspective might arguably be considered appropriately forthcoming if they went ahead and used the word "faith" in reference to the smidgen of uncertainty that we naturally overcome, when availing ourselves of both common sense and the scientific method. After all, it is something (whatever you call it) that a Creationist, et al. is likely to point to--and getting defensive about terminology looks like weakness. Why not spend one's energy explaining the difference between science and Creationism while addressing this supposed stumbling-block (in the minds of the religious-minded), instead of pointing at honest and respectful discourse as if it were some rhetorical gaffe that might cost us the game?

I don't want to overstate the case--no doubt, some religious arguers are equally combative, and might reflexively equate the common sense "faith" in how gravity makes the dropped apple fall every time, with the faith in an untestable and contradiction-riddled story from millenia ago. But talking around the issue, or instead using some word like "assumption" is no way to win the point.

[Babbalanja]

"Feelings count for nothing?" That's a laugh. Without emotion (fear to remind us to flee from predators, happiness to tell us that something is good for us, sexual desire to incite procreation, etc.) there would be no complex organisms, and therefore very little species diversity. Feelings are really ALL that matter. Feelings are what drive the scientist to ask questions in the first place. They're also what get us out of bed in the morning. Straw man alert!

This is a completely different point than the one I was disputing. I never said that the emotions of modern humans don't derive from our evolutionary heritage. Of course they do. And everyone has feelings, as I said: we feel strongly about our families and the subjects that inspire us.

What I was saying is that how we feel about explanations for natural phenomena is totally irrelevant. Does the heliocentric theory of the structure of our solar system seem to de-emphasize our importance in the universe, by reducing Earth to a watery rock orbiting the Sun? Too bad. Does evolution by natural selection downgrade the importance of Homo Sap by making him a late arrival to the scene, just another fortuitous accident in the scheme of things? That's too bad too.

These theories are well supported by evidence, and how we feel about them is of no consequence.


This is just my opinion, but you seem to be ignorantly biased against anything that you percieve as "non-scientific." You might want to try to get over that. This same stupid mindset drove the eugenicists, and also the behaviorists. Historically, steadfast closed mindedness has really set science back (not to mention the human species as a whole).Since you called me ignorant, closed-minded, and a crypto-Nazi here, I feel justified in saying that you could use a more thorough education in the history and philosophy of science. You might benefit from actually understanding the basis of empirical evidential inquiry instead of just winging it.

Regards,

Istvan

[The Atheist]

Just a quick note.

This is a thread about evolution, a subject with overwhelming hard science behind it, so let's keep our own emotions in check.

:)

[andave_ya]

Just a quick note.

This is a thread about evolution, a subject with overwhelming hard science behind it, so let's keep our own emotions in check.

:)

that's called begging the question.

purpose of thread: finding out the "hard science" behind evolution
your premise: evolution is a subject with overwhelming hard science behind it.
your conclusion: let's keep our emotions in check, shall we?

[OrphanPip]

that's called begging the question.

purpose of thread: finding out the "hard science" behind evolution
your premise: evolution is a subject with overwhelming hard science behind it.
your conclusion: let's keep our emotions in check, shall we?

Or, it was just a reminder to the other posters to keep the discussion civil.

[The Atheist]

that's called begging the question.

purpose of thread: finding out the "hard science" behind evolution
your premise: evolution is a subject with overwhelming hard science behind it.
your conclusion: let's keep our emotions in check, shall we?

No.

This:


Or, it was just a reminder to the other posters to keep the discussion civil.

...and....

...if there are questions of the science, we can answer them rationally and emotionlessly as the answers are there.

;)

[Nick Capozzoli]

Nick, I addressed your puerile notion that anything is faith if it's something we're not 100% absolutely certain about. There's no such thing as this kind of certainty. Talking about faith as it applies to empirical evidential inquiry is is self-defeating, and is only done by people desperate to denigrate the scientific perspective.

Regards,

Istvan

I thank Billl for his comments Re your above response to me. I'm sorry that you missed the point I made about the need of science to accept certain basic terms "on faith." Billl apparently got my point, and I'm sure others did as well. Calling my notion puerile doesn't relly help your argument.

You seem to think that I am anti-science. That's not the case. I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in biology and medicine. I consider myself to be a scientist. I'm not a "bench researcher," but I've been working for over 20 years as a physician, and have even published peer-reviewed clinical research in my areas of specialization.

As a scientist, I understand that there are limits to what we can "prove" by rational argument. Anyone who has studied mathematics knows, for example, that we must begin our logical arguments with unproven (and unprovable) "postulates." These are usually very basic ideas, such as "number" (0, 1, 2, 3, etc), physical quantities ("mass," "space," "time"), operations (+/x), associational rules (commutivity/distributitivity), and various sorts of "relationship identities" (greater than, less than, equal, not equal), time-related identities (before, during, and after), and finally, the idea of causation, i.e. that "A causes B," or at least that "A is associated with B." These postulates are things that we agree to accept "on faith." We accept them on faith because we must, because we have to begin somewhere. Why stop at these fundamental "unprovable" postulates? We stop there because we our ability to "think" can go no further. That's the way our minds work.

[Babbalanja]

Nick,


As a scientist, I understand that there are limits to what we can "prove" by rational argument.
If you actually were a scientist, you wouldn't make such a big deal out of our inability to prove something. Nothing is truly ever proven in scientific endeavor. We merely formulate theories to explain observations: the strength of a theory depends on how much subsequent testing fails to disconfirm the theory.

And I stick by my claim that the type of faith involved in the assumptions of scientific inquiry is completely different from the type of faith involved in religious belief. It isn't a matter of degree, the two concepts are fundamentally different. Your argument seems to rest on the fact that the word faith can be used to describe both, and that's a woefully inadequate basis on which to equate them.

Regards,

Istvan


Historically, steadfast closed mindedness has really set science back (not to mention the human species as a whole).Historically, it's been just the opposite. Limiting the amount of variables to those which can be empirically verified is what makes up methodological naturalism, the very basis of contemporary scientific inquiry. Pasteur didn't create a revolution in biology by letting his imagination run free and theorizing about magic beings or mystery forces. He set up experiments to test his theory that there is a material cause for fermentation and putrefaction.

By all means, if you'd like to list the amount of scientific advances that have been made through postulating religious and magical concepts as the basis for natural phenomena, I eagerly await your response.

Regards,

Istvan

[Dori]

I'm reading this fascinating book right now: The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit by Melvin Konner. I haven't read much of it yet, which is to say I've only gotten as far as chapter 2--Adaptation. I'll come back with more on the subject; in the meantime, I highly recommend it.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Nick,


If you actually were a scientist, you wouldn't make such a big deal out of our inability to prove something. Nothing is truly ever proven in scientific endeavor. We merely formulate theories to explain observations: the strength of a theory depends on how much subsequent testing fails to disconfirm the theory.

fails to disconfirm is an interesting double negative way of saying "confirms."

And I stick by my claim that the type of faith involved in the assumptions of scientific inquiry is completely different from the type of faith involved in religious belief. It isn't a matter of degree, the two concepts are fundamentally different. Your argument seems to rest on the fact that the word faith can be used to describe both, and that's a woefully inadequate basis on which to equate them.

The difference between "faith" in science and in religion is both a matter of degree and in the different attitudes towards that which is taken on faith, (i.e. the assumptions or postulates, as I said in my original post on the subject. Science limits the assumptions to very basic concepts that reveal the limits of our ability to reason. We have to stop (or more accurately begin)somewhere, mainly to avoid "circular reasoning" in our proofs. Furthermore, as I originally posted, science allows for experiment to check the validity of the application of our ideas to the operation of the world as we perceive it. Religious faith does not permit this sort of experimental testing of religious ideas, and it responds quite differently to experience that contradicts the religious articles of faith. Scientists may be reluctant to accept new evidence that contradicts a prevailing theory, but eventually they will be forced to accept the evidence and change their theory. Sientists who present the new evidence and come up with new theories may face a lot of resistance. But religious folk who come up with ideas that run counter to prevailing religious beliefs are usually branded as heretics (and literally branded or killed by other means).

As regards your comment that nothing is truly provable in scientific endeavor, that is true insofar as our understanding of the world is based on our ability to reason and to perceive the world. Our reason is limited by our mental ability, which is a function of our brains, which have evolved by natural selection (to keep us on topic here). Our ability to perceive is also evolving, based on technological and scientific evolution. So it is reasonable to assume that our most current ideas about the world are subject to continuous testing and potential need for revision.

I should have highlighted the difference beween scientific and mathematical "proof." Even in mathematics there are limits to what can be proven as "true." Godel "proved" that in every mathematical system based on postulates there are higher order statements that may be true but whose truth can never be proven using the system's postulates. This could also apply to science based on postulates (the articles of faith I referred to in science).

Regards,

Istvan

Regards,

Nick

[JuniperWoolf]

Historically, it's been just the opposite. Limiting the amount of variables to those which can be empirically verified is what makes up methodological naturalism, the very basis of contemporary scientific inquiry. Pasteur didn't create a revolution in biology by letting his imagination run free and theorizing about magic beings or mystery forces. He set up experiments to test his theory that there is a material cause for fermentation and putrefaction.

By all means, if you'd like to list the amount of scientific advances that have been made through postulating religious and magical concepts as the basis for natural phenomena, I eagerly await your response.

Regards,

Istvan


:lol: I wasn't talking about religion, you goof. Try to keep up: you said that when it comes to species diversity, feelings count for nothing. With that in mind, re-read my post and try again.

On second thought, don't. Arguing with you is a waste of my time. I've schooled enough pseudo-scientist bullies in my short lifetime, and like The Atheist said, this thread is about evolution. I've already made my thoughts on that subject clear.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Sorry, but my last response to Babba was incorrectly formatted. I should have used multiquote. My response was embedded in the large passage that appears as a quotation field.

Also, I regret that the discussion about faith and reason has strayed from the main topic of this thread, which is evolution. Let's get back on subject.:redface:

[Babbalanja]

:lol: I wasn't talking about religion, you goof. Try to keep up: you said that when it comes to species diversity, feelings count for nothing. With that in mind, re-read my post and try again.
Since you either didn't read my response to you here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=809956&postcount=164) or are trying to ignore it, maybe it's you who needs to keep up. Thanks again for the personal insult.


On second thought, don't. Arguing with you is a waste of my time. I've schooled enough pseudo-scientist bullies in my short lifetime, and like The Atheist said, this thread is about evolution. I've already made my thoughts on that subject clear.Yes, obviously you've "schooled" plenty of people with the careful attention you pay to the details of a debate. This is why you continue to misrepresent my position on how relevant feelings are to the subject of assessing the validity of a scientific construct such as the evolution of species by natural selection.

Whether this misrepresentation is deliberate or not, it seems you're not inclined to engage with what people are actually saying. Please read a book like Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher or Tower of Babel: Evidence against the New Creationism by Robert Pennock if you want to develop a working knowledge of what science and species evolution truly are and aren't.

Regards,

Istvan


The difference between "faith" in science and in religion is both a matter of degree and in the different attitudes towards that which is taken on faith,
Saying it again and again doesn't make it true, Nick. Scientific endeavor doesn't involve faith, it employs a completely different approach to knowledge (and to the unknown) than religious belief.

Empirical evidential inquiry works in an inductive, cumulative fashion to give us a certain statistical reliability to the theories whose validity we affirm. Nothing is ever proved, and we're never certain. A person with this perspective realizes that additional information can change or even refute what he currently believes.

Religious belief is merely certainty for free. It makes people affirm the validity of claims that are often times nonsensical, and to do so enough times so that the believer finally stops doubting it. A person with this perspective only recognizes new information that seems to confirm what he already believes, and ignores anything that may change or refute it.

Regards,

Istvan

[andave_ya]

...if there are questions of the science, we can answer them rationally and emotionlessly as the answers are there.

;)

Keeping civil - fine. I agree with you. But the above isn't quite what you originally said. You said evolution has hard evidence behind it.

(I want to post more, but I'm about to jump into finals at college. I'll post more over break...:lol: I just don't know when I've had enough, do I?)

[The Atheist]

Keeping civil - fine. I agree with you. But the above isn't quite what you originally said. You said evolution has hard evidence behind it.

It does. The post you quoted was just about keeping an interesting and informative thread on track.


(I want to post more, but I'm about to jump into finals at college. I'll post more over break...:lol: I just don't know when I've had enough, do I?)

Good luck!

:D

[altheskeptic]

I have not read the twelve pages of post before this but I have a pretty good idea of how the discussion went because I have been there before. I [B]used to be a creationist. First of all evolution happens...I cannot deny this fact. It is just as clear to me as pouring vinegar on baking soda. I have done a lot of study (informal as it is) on this subject.

If you throw your bias away and study a little biology you will realize that life is simply chemistry. The argument that life formed then...therefore it should be forming now is a fallacy. The conditions on earth are much different now than they were then. Therefore life will not come into existence now. Even if anything evolved toward life were formed it would be eaten by the life the is already here.

You would also know that bacteria (in rare cases) even exchange genetic material. Bacteria have sex!

Life does not evolve from one form to another as in white to gray to black. It can evolve from white to black. It does not move in a straight line from simple to more complex in all cases. It is selected because it "fits" in its environment. Being more complex or less complex is not considered. Evolution does not think.

If you are a creationist...just open your eyes...what about Australia? How did the animals move all over the world and "adapt" so quickly? How did they get from place to place?

[Sebas. Melmoth]

So here's a question: let's say you take some metallic ore (iron, copper, zinc, etc.) and pile it up in some dusty corner of the universe and let it sit about a gazillion years: would it eventually evolve into a Swiss watch?

Answer: no.

Why? Two reasons: (1) the Laws of Thermodynamics wherin the energy of a body tends towards less and never more; wherein there is no 100% energy-efficient chemical reaction; wherein you can't evolve up without energy input; wherein everything devolves down, energy of a body is 'lost' in chemical exchange (i.e., transformed into other matter) and (2) without information input (i.e., design) nothing can be built up.

[altheskeptic]

This is the fallacy devised originally (I think) by Lecomte du Nouy . And it rests in the assumption that pure chance is the guiding factor and that atoms can fit together in any fashion at all. We don't depend on chance alone, but on chance guided by the laws of nature.

In the 1920s a biologist named Haldane suggested that since coal was of plant origin, and plants obtain their carbon dioxide from the air, there must have been much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before life evolved on earth.

Furthermore, the oxygen in the atmosphere is produced by the same reactions that absorb the carbon dioxide and places it in the plant tissue.

In the primordial atmosphere there would be no oxygen in the air and no ozone either. It follows then, that the ultraviolet radiation from the sun (much stronger than today because of lack of ozone) would serve to combine molecules of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water into more and more complex compounds that would, finally, develop the attributes of life.

The energy is supplied by the sun. And chemical reactions happen all the time.

Your thermodynamics argument is moot... and nonsensical.

[The Atheist]

So here's a question: let's say you take some metallic ore (iron, copper, zinc, etc.) and pile it up in some dusty corner of the universe and let it sit about a gazillion years: would it eventually evolve into a Swiss watch?

No, metals turn into computers.

It's jars of peanut butter that become watches.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

[The] thermodynamics argument is moot... and nonsensical.


Then the universe is not in fact cooling and expanding?

In any case, those who believe everything evolved from nothing really want to b e l i e v e it.

That's their belief system.

[The Atheist]

Then the universe is not in fact cooling and expanding?

In any case, those who believe everything evolved from nothing really want to b e l i e v e it.

That's their belief system.

Oh, I'd go a step further and say we have faith in evolution.

I have to admit, it gets very hard at times.

[OrphanPip]

Why? Two reasons: (1) the Laws of Thermodynamics wherin the energy of a body tends towards less and never more; wherein there is no 100% energy-efficient chemical reaction; wherein you can't evolve up without energy input; wherein everything devolves down, energy of a body is 'lost' in chemical exchange (i.e., transformed into other matter) and (2) without information input (i.e., design) nothing can be built up.

This is nonsense, Sebas.

1) This is a misrepresentation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. While it is true that the net entropy of the universe is ever increasing, however looking specifically within a closed system this is clearly not the case. When you have an external energy source like the sun, the entropy on Earth can be decreased locally despite the fact that the universe as a whole is doomed to fall apart. Snowflakes form spontaneously, as do crystal formations. Complex organics within a reducing environment, with external energy sources, will form more complex molecules. This was proven experimentally through the Urey-Miller experiments to be possible with amino acids.

2) This is just an outright baseless claim. As mentioned before, snowflakes form complex unique structures spontaneously. Moreover, "information input" is an entirely meaningless construction of ID proponents that is ill-defined and essentially nonsense.

Edit: Also, this is addressing hypotheses of abiogenesis not evolution. The Theory of Evolution addresses how living things change over time, not where living things come from.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

This is nonsense.

Right.

(Still waiting for that watch to evolve...)

[Dodo25]

Right.

(Still waiting for that watch to evolve...)

If your mind is not too closed yet, you might want to read the following thread (it's less than one page) where the evidence for evolution as well as the terminology is addressed: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54322

[altheskeptic]

I think that it is fair enough to speak of life forming on earth from non-life.
But it is not like watchmaking. Stanley Lloyd Miller (a young student) was encouraged by a chemist (Harold Clayton Urey) to perform an experiment using a primordial atmosphere proposed by a Soviet biologist whose last name was Oparin. The supposed atmosphere consisted of ammonia, methane, and water vapor, and hydrogen.

He began with a sterile mixture of water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen. He then used an electric discharge as an energy source, and that represented a tiny version of the sun.

He circulated the mixture past the discharge for a week and then analyzed it. The original mixture had turned pink on the first day, and by the end of the week one sixth of the methane with which Miller had started had been turned into more complex molecules. Among those molecules were glycine and alanine, the two simplest amino acids that occur in proteins.

In the years that followed that experiment, other experiments were conducted, with variations in starting materials and energy sources. Guess what???

More complicated molecules, sometimes identical to those to those in living tissue, and sometimes merely related to them were formed "spontaneously" in this manner , although calculations of the simplistic Lecomte du Nouy type would have given their formation nearly no chance whatsoever.

It is also impressive that all the changes produced in the lab ...BY CHANCE COLLISIONS OF MOLECULES...AND CHANCE ABSORPTIONS OF ENERGY... (guided always by the laws of nature) seemed to move in the direction of life ...as we know it now.

[The Atheist]

I think that it is fair enough to speak of life forming on earth from non-life.

I don't.

Viruses & prions aren't "alive" by any yardstick, yet they replicate as though they were alive.

The problem is using anthropocentric terms in connection with different arrangements of matter.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

Things fall apart; things do not fall together.

Things move from order to chaos; things do not move from chaos to order.

Order requires two things: energy and information.

Information requires intellingence.

Intelligence requires being.

[blazeofglory]

Wherefrom does this synthesis come? Did you spin it? Was there a being or life before all else? Do mean a being means a living being? We cannot infer this, except by imagination

[Sebas. Melmoth]

We have faith in evolution.

That's the point: Scientism is a belief system wherein scientists are the priests (wisdom givers) and the laboratory is the temple.

If humankind could find its own way via its science, how come in the 21st Century the world is in such a gawd-awful mess?--and certain to get worse?--indeed, devolving from civility into neoprimitivism?

Surely science will lead us...

Yeah, right.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

Wherefrom does this synthesis come?

Simple entropy law of thermodynamics: the energy of a body tends towards less; things fall apart; things move from order to chaos.

[Dodo25]

That's the point: Scientism is a belief system wherein scientists are the priests (wisdom givers) and the laboratory is the temple.

He was being sarcastic, presumably because after 13 pages of 'discussion' people still make claims about thermodynamics!

If you'd actually read the stuff that's presented to you, you'd change your mind or AT LEAST stop misrepresenting evolution in your arguments. Or just keep ignoring everything, your choice.

One more thing: If my own further comments here become increasingly cynical or sarcastic, blame human ignorance and indoctrination.

[Heteronym]

Then the universe is not in fact cooling and expanding?

In any case, those who believe everything evolved from nothing really want to b e l i e v e it.

That's their belief system.

No, it is, at the moment, given the information that we possess, the most sensible system. Creationism and intelligent design, in the face of the fossile findings and the rather coherent theory of evolution, are not sensible.

One of the ways we can evaluate the progress of theories is by how they explain something with more clarity than their predecessors. Christianity doesn't explain dinossaurs or how human population came from a single pair of humans. Evolution explains more, so it's more reasonable and deserves more credit.

Until a better system comes along.

[OrphanPip]

Simple entropy law of thermodynamics: the energy of a body tends towards less; things fall apart; things move from order to chaos.

Do you have any idea how silly this argument is.

Have you ever boiled water, or heated anything. Clearly it is possible to raise the energy within a closed system with an external energy source. This is reflective of a seriously superficial understanding of thermodynamics.


Things fall apart; things do not fall together.

Things move from order to chaos; things do not move from chaos to order.

Order requires two things: energy and information.

Information requires intellingence.

Intelligence requires being.

Once again, you misunderstand how thermodynamics applies to events within a localized closed system.

The notion that order requires "information," which I would love to see a definition of, is particularly ridiculous.

http://www.ndt-educational.org/images/FOGAZZI-77.jpg

This is a calcium phosphate crystal, they form spontaneously in alkaline urine, into elongated pyramid like ordered structures.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/kids/samplecrystals.jpg

These are snowflakes, they also form spontaneously without "information," and are highly ordered structures.

Your assumptions are patently false.

[The Atheist]

Things fall apart; things do not fall together.

Even my eight-year old knows this is not true.

We do a very simple scientific experiment where we boil a cup of water, then add and dissolve sugar until no more can be dissolved. This makes a really cool syrupy mixture which is called a "saturated solution". It is so saturated with sugar that not even another grain will dissolve in it.

We then pour that into a glass jug and hang a piece of string from a pencil into the mixture.

We leave it for a few days and lo and behold, things not only fall together, they join together, just as OP's snowflakes did.

Beautiful cyrstals of sugar form on the string. These are, of course, 100% edible, being pure sugar.

Science you can eat.


That's the point: Scientism is a belief system wherein scientists are the priests (wisdom givers) and the laboratory is the temple.

Isn't that excellent how science mirrors religion in that?

The big difference, of course, is that instead of a preacher standing at the front and talking, anyone and everyone can conduct their own experiments to confirm what the preachers [scientists] say!



If humankind could find its own way via its science, how come in the 21st Century the world is in such a gawd-awful mess?

Two things:

One is that there are 6 billion theists and a couple of million scientists on the planet.

The second is, what mess? Compared to what time in earth's history is the present earth more of a mess then?

All of human history prior to the last 100 years was a lot more of a mess than now - no medicine, constant war, enormous poverty. Right now, we an amazing array of medicine that can cure or at least aid almost any disease; wars are still around, but appear to be being fought by a few volunteers from each side and poverty, while not fixed, is a much lower percentage of human existence than it's ever been.

During the past 100 years, most of it was taken up by Depression, World Wars and the Cold War, so I can't really consider those times better than these?

Please do explain!


--and certain to get worse?--indeed, devolving from civility into neoprimitivism?

What?

Please read the above and get back to me. When was the last witch executed? When did the last polio epidemic occur? Are you living in the same world as the rest of us? I wouldn't claim the world is perfect by any means, but it's a hell of a lot "better" than it's ever been before.


Surely science will lead us...

Yeah, right.

As opposed to where religion led us? (nice segue back into the thread, though!)

[hoope]

I agree with The Atheist in this.. i mean i never thought i could agree with him in anything.. But it seems i do now. !

Yes ! Science has don't alot .. and how you Sbas .. compare between before and now.. Yes there is a little wars.. but nothing compared to before where there was no rules and world wars. !!!
Besides as The Atheist mentioned MEDICINE for God sake .. being a nurse.. trust me when you go to the hosptial .. you will know how it changed alot.. how many people are saved because new technicians of surgeries , treatments.. and so on...
Sceince has enlighted many dark ages .. And no doubt that things are BETTER .






As opposed to where religion led us? (nice segue back into the thread, though!)

However .. there always has to be a point where i would find to disagree with the Atheit?:D

AS OPPOSED YO WHERE RELIGION LED US ????????:confused:
I mean .. i don't know if you know this but ISLAM AND SCIENCE stands hand in hand ....
In the Holy Quran .. it always insists on learning and inventing and creating new technologies.
I mean who was the man who put the first concepts of Chemistry .. a muslim scholar named Jaber Bin Hayyan ..
The use of lenses and all that about how light travels and mirror law.. all was done Ibn Al Haithem ..
The first man who tried flying .. wasn't the Wright Brothers.. hundered years before they comeinto being - a muslim Scientist; Abbas Bin Firnas .. did it.

Europeans and Ameircan Scholars .. know all that.. and they had put their principals based on their results and they had added to that and invented alot of inventions - Many books in arabic were translated to Spanish and Italian .. to spread the knowledge back then ...

However, nowadays we don't hear much about Arab scientist or muslims scholars.. they are way back as compared to the technologies of nowadays that are made by the western.
http://www.ummah.net/history/scholars/

Anyway that is not the subject... what i want to say is that.. I don't know about Christianity or Buddhisim - but Islam advices and emphasizes on the importance of science and that its the way of pride and success.

[Heteronym]

Yes, Arabic civilisation was at one point the most developed in history when Europe was still in the dark ages and we owe much to it for perserving many classic works of science. Europe moved away from religious fundamentalism, whereas tha Arabs were sadly engulfed by it. People like Melmoth apparently would like for us to go back to those times, though, when mental illness was explained by witchcraft, bubonic plagues were cured with prayers, and women didn't have rights.

[altheskeptic]

These evolution discussions always go the same way. Lets bring in religion. Well...I have had that stuff shoved down my throat all my life. In my country it is Christianity. If I don't believe it...I go to hell. The Muslim tells me the same thing...if I am not a Muslim...I go to hell.

The creation "scientist" comes in and states that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and a worldwide flood took place about 4,000 years ago. They also come up with "evidence" to support this.

A Muslim will let you believe all the science you want...as long as you believe in their Holy Book.

All religions (practically) claim to be religions of peace. The whole time they are hell bent on killing the infidel, punishing the sinner, and making the rules. The infidel being someone that doesn't believe the same way they do.
Die for me...and live forever!!!

Lets keep it about evolution shall we?

I used to be a creationist...But I took a look at the science, and came up with one question.

What about Australia?

[hoope]

These evolution discussions always go the same way. Lets bring in religion. Well...I have had that stuff shoved down my throat all my life. In my country it is Christianity. If I don't believe it...I go to hell. The Muslim tells me the same thing...if I am not a Muslim...I go to hell.

The creation "scientist" comes in and states that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and a worldwide flood took place about 4,000 years ago. They also come up with "evidence" to support this.

A Muslim will let you believe all the science you want...as long as you believe in their Holy Book.

All religions (practically) claim to be religions of peace. The whole time they are hell bent on killing the infidel, punishing the sinner, and making the rules. The infidel being someone that doesn't believe the same way they do.
Die for me...and live forever!!!

Lets keep it about evolution shall we?

I used to be a creationist...But I took a look at the science, and came up with one question.

What about Australia?

A muslim don't force others to believe in their Holy Book .. and if u hear other than that.. then its wrong...
I hell don't care of you agree with me or not.. and i don't expect you to believe in what i believe in .. .. but respect it Yes !
There are many Christians and Hindu and people who believe in all sort of things that live in all the Arab Gulf countries.. no one was ever forced on anything.. and no one ever recieved and racism in any kind.. and no one ever fought then or hurt them.. In fact they live in equality and they have great jobs and high positions and doing well..
Muslims don't say that you Mike should go to hell.. While Jane goes to heaven .. but as for Jack he goes to hell.. !!!!
If you are having this silly idea .. then i guess you don't know anything.. and all you go is just judge people without knowing them.. or withouth finding out the truth ..
And for your knowledge .. there are many great Arab inventors NOWADAYS who don't know anything about their holy book- and they may hardly pray .. Yet they are muslims and they are inventor..

Our Holy book may giude us to the right path .. but i don't deny that science is science.. But it don't mean that everyone has to believe in it by force.. its up to u .. if u accept ir or not.. !


You know what !!!
Just lets stick to evolution part !

[Dodo25]

I know it's a little off topic, but I gotta respond to that comment:


A muslim don't force others to believe in their Holy Book .. and if u hear other than that.. then its wrong...


Are you sure about this? I don't think you know your holy books that well..
You might want to research the qu'ranic concept 'lesser jihad'.

I wish moderate believers would stop calling themselves 'Christians' or 'Muslims', they're simply giving cover to those who actually do take the texts literally, and then we have problems like illustrated in i.e. Saudi Arabia.

(If anyone wants to respond to this, I suggest to post in the new thread 'Biblical Literalism' in order to get back to the topic here, which is EVOLUTION)

@Topic,
There's actually a huge creationism movement in Islam too, not just Christianity. The one thing that differs significantly is that few Muslims are Young Earth Creationists. There's nothing in the qu'ran that stresses a particular timescale, and Muslims find it easy to reconcile their account of creation with the big bang.

However, evolution does pose a threat of course, because it shows that man is not as unique as one would like it. Furthermore, it shows how intelligence arises spontaneously from simplicity, what a dangerous idea!

In Turkey, there's this guy called Harun Yahya. He single-handedly set up a huge creationism movement, borrowing a lot of material from Evangelical Christians in the US. Around half the people of Turkey reject evolution, given the fact that Turkey actually has separation of church and state, is quite modern and even applying for EU membership, this is a catastrophe (US ain't much better though, 40% evoluiton deniers).

Many Islamic creationists, going back to Yahya's books and lectures, have this obsession with evolution = atheism, communism, abortion, fascism and, I'm not joking, TERRORISM.

It would be entertaining if it wasn't scary.

[The Atheist]

What about Australia?

As long as you don't hold Australians as any part of proof of evolution, that'll work out ok.

;)

[altheskeptic]

As long as you don't hold Australians as any part of proof of evolution, that'll work out ok.

;)

I haven't met anyone from Australia personally, but the ones I have talked to on the net seem to be real friendly people. I would love to visit there some day.

I was thinking more about the kangaroo, and the koala bear. I know of no fossils of "roos" found anywhere besides Australia. And if there were a "flood" how did they get there...hopping on water?

[altheskeptic]

A muslim don't force others to believe in their Holy Book .. and if u hear other than that.. then its wrong...
I hell don't care of you agree with me or not.. and i don't expect you to believe in what i believe in .. .. but respect it Yes !
There are many Christians and Hindu and people who believe in all sort of things that live in all the Arab Gulf countries.. no one was ever forced on anything.. and no one ever recieved and racism in any kind.. and no one ever fought then or hurt them.. In fact they live in equality and they have great jobs and high positions and doing well..
Muslims don't say that you Mike should go to hell.. While Jane goes to heaven .. but as for Jack he goes to hell.. !!!!
If you are having this silly idea .. then i guess you don't know anything.. and all you go is just judge people without knowing them.. or withouth finding out the truth ..
And for your knowledge .. there are many great Arab inventors NOWADAYS who don't know anything about their holy book- and they may hardly pray .. Yet they are muslims and they are inventor..

Our Holy book may giude us to the right path .. but i don't deny that science is science.. But it don't mean that everyone has to believe in it by force.. its up to u .. if u accept ir or not.. !


You know what !!!
Just lets stick to evolution part !

I think all religions are nonsense. If I offended you ...sorry.

[OrphanPip]

Geographical distribution of related species is such a strong supporter of evolution, it's such a clear contradiction to the Noah story that it boggles the mind that people still believe in the Arch. In Australia's case, more than 90% of species found on the continent are endemic, they are found no where else in the world. Why? Because of evolution. Marsupials are the largest group of mammals native to Australia, whereas the marsupial is incredibly rare outside of Australia, the opossums being pretty much the only one. Likewise, one major groups of placental mammals are almost entirely absent from Australia, (before European arrival), the carnivora (bears, dogs, cats, weasels, etc.), the only one found naturally in Australia being seals. This has allowed the relatively vulnerable large marsupials to thrive, where they were out-competed nearly everywhere else by placentals. Australia also happens to be the only place where carnivorous (in the sense of meat eating not the order of mammals) marsupials evolved.

If you want to know why there are no carnivores in Australia, besides the aquatic seal, well carnivores only evolved 42 million years ago in North America, by that time Australia had moved away from Antarctica! 50 million years ago, marsupials travelled through South America, across Antarctica, and into Australia. Unfortunately for carnivores, Australia separated from Antarctica, severing the land bridge, 45 million years ago, carnivores never had the opportunity to reach Australia, instead they crossed from North America into Asia, moving westward eventually colonizing every other continent, a very successful order.

[The Atheist]

I haven't met anyone from Australia personally, but the ones I have talked to on the net seem to be real friendly people. I would love to visit there some day.

Don't bother - you can replicate a trip to Australia by going into your nearest desert with a wild rat. Although rats are quite a bit less offensive than koalas, so you might want to take some extra fleas to be sure.

:D

Don't mind me, I'm just a Kiwi taking every shot at Aussie I can. The Lucky Country is dead right, but they lift us up along the way, so it's ok.


I was thinking more about the kangaroo, and the koala bear.

You'd better get out of that habit before you go - they are not koala bears, just koalas.

The punishment for calling them koala bears is two nights with Dame Edna Everage. All night.


I know of no fossils of "roos" found anywhere besides Australia. And if there were a "flood" how did they get there...hopping on water?

Funnily enough, as Pip notes, it's because of the water that the marsupials exist.

Between us, NZ and Australia offer extensive proof of evolution. Alongside Aussie's marsupials, we managed to evolve a country entirely populated by birds, reptiles and insects*, where various species of bird occupy places usually occupied by mammals. Most of 'em are extinct now, unfortunately - birds make good eating and had no defence against rats and weasels that settlers kindly brought with them.

*there is one native species of herbivorous bat.

[altheskeptic]

When I was talking about kangaroos walking on water I was talking about the flood story.

I work with a young earth person and sometimes I get the conversations mixed.

The other day I was trying to have a discussion of how life may have originated on earth.

I was trying to explain carbon bonding to other atoms in an attempt to show him that there are rules that govern chemistry. And chemical reactions are not random.

So he retorts, "Where did the carbon come from huh?" "Someone had to make the carbon."

He will only accept a creationist point of view. He rejects everything else.

If I told him that carbon was made in stars he would ask something like..."What about radiometric dating?"

So I just tell him he is right, the kangaroo hopped to Australia, and the God pushed the continent away from Asia after they got there (about what? 3,000 years ago?).

But then again...there is the penguin.

[Thomas Lucero]

In the beginning it takes a fair bit of tweaking to get the conditions right for optimum baking, then its all hands go and everything is going smoothly the cake is both rising ad setting and its all good. But take it out too soon and it is underdone, but if its left in too long, it spoils. so what makes evolution stop when something is 'just fine'. What turns the oven off? :D

The term evolutionists use is punctuated equilibrium. If the environment is relatively constant, then there is no pressure for a species to change - the equilibrium part. When things do change drastically, say in an ice age, 99%+ of life in the iced-over area dies. That doesn't mean that species x dies, although if their entire habitat is destroyed, they probably will. The survivors, on the ice and at the edge of the ice, may need to adapt rapidly - or they may be perfectly suited to live in these conditions.

We don't know for sure what caused the mass extinctions in North America about 10,000 years ago - could be the Younger Dryad (1,000 year ice age about 11,000 years ago) or the flood that happened at the end of the Younger Dryad, or humans could have hunted several large mammals to extinction. Lots of data - but not enough to draw definite conclusions - yet.

Origin of life is especially difficult. Anyone who has seriously looked at the numbers will consider the possibility that we are the only hominoids in the galaxy. There isn't enough data to estimate the number of planets with life. It could equal the number of planets with hominoids (as in one), or we could have millions/billions of planets with life. There is a small non-zero possibility that life was carried to Earth from somewhere else.

I believe that most talkers on the subject are innumerate to the extent that they couldn't give any idea on how fast the universe changes, or the physical constraints - one proton can have at most 44 bits of data, while one hydrogen atom (proton plus electron) an have - I forget, but it's a lot.

The math of evolution is quite challenging - but trying to imagine how life began, twice - mitochondria is also inherited, but the mechanism is different, and the origin also - well, scientists aren't even close on that. Of course, both creationists and evolutionists tend to wave hands on this point. Me, I want to get into it. I just don't know how to pursue it.


That's it! The last sentence.
Given enough time and computing power, literally any physical problem can be reduced to maths.

Scientists used to believe that. Then came quantum physics, statistical models. Universe is not like a clock. We can recover an astonishing amount of information from fossils, telescopes, etc. but there are fundamental limits to what is knowable, as quantum theory and Godel's theorem show, on what appears to be completely different levels.

Is there an algorithm for what makes a good poem? Not yet. Is it possible? I'm not foolish enough to say it is impossible. Is there an algorithm for good public policy? Might be; no evidence I can see that we are actually using one. Or Churchill could be right when he said "You can always count on America to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." Of course, trying everything might count as an algorithm - there's just no evidence that it will approach truth in P or even in NP time.

[The Atheist]

The math of evolution is quite challenging - but trying to imagine how life began, twice - mitochondria is also inherited, but the mechanism is different, and the origin also - well, scientists aren't even close on that. Of course, both creationists and evolutionists tend to wave hands on this point. Me, I want to get into it. I just don't know how to pursue it.

Bravo!

It's not so much that people wave their hands, it's more a case of it being so specialised and technical that most people just don't have a grasp on it. I can point you at a couple of people who are at the level you want to talk to:

Skeptic Wiki has a section on evolution written by a PhD mathematician who has worked extensively with evolutionary algorithms. I only know his screen name of Dr Adequate, although he may use a different one there. If you go to SW and check out the evolution pages or contact the admin, you may get some directions.

Another is at JREF forum - a poster with the screen name Paul C Anagostopoulous [I think that's right!] has done a lot of the same kind of work. He is another doctor of maths with lots of work in evolutionary algorithms.

For a completely new look at abiogenesis, you could try www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk "Experts" think he's on the wrong track, but I find his ideas interesting, especially as an adjunct to what we know for sure.

Other than that, the level of knowledge and discussion at FRDB (http://www.freeratio.org/) should give you some food for thought - several evolutionary biologists post there. Good science board that.

[Thomas Lucero]

I forget who it was who said "The Universe may not be stranger
than we think; it may be stranger than we can think." I don't
believe it was Einstein, but another cosmologist.

Nick

J.B.S Haldane expressed that first. Exact quote: "The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." - Possible Worlds and Other Papers (1927).

[Thomas Lucero]

Yes. Abiogenesis is a logical point to begin explaining the origin of life, unless you want to assume that "life" existed from the beginning of the material universe, which to me is an unscientific approach.

The beginning of life is such an improbable occurrence that extraordinary theories are, in this case, justified. The one that I buy involves the math of Hugh Everett who argued in his doctoral thesis that everything that can happen does happen, just in realities that are orthogonal to our own, and which can coincide later, although it is unlikely that they will.

Hawking looked at Everett's thesis and concluded that it is true and trivial. I agree with the true, but not the trivial. I think Hawking overlooked some aspect of this. Eddington captured some of what I believe in scientific poetry.

"We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origins. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own."

I believe that what we call "G-d" is our future selves communicating with us backwards in time to create the present. I've taken Frank Tipler's math (in my opinion, he has made one understandable error and compounded it horrendously; universe is observably everywhere locally hyperbolic) and applied it with Feynman's and Everett's and Shannon, Kelly and Thorp (he's the guy who beat blackjack and roulette in Vegas using math).

Our future computational skills, when summed over multiple histories, is immense. Is it enough for life or wisdom to leak over from one reality to another? My best guess is yes. Could that be perceived as G-d? Easily.

Now, if our future selves are communicating with us, then we have survived into the future. Unless it's also communicating from a different future universe, one that we did not spawn. It doesn't prove that our survival is guaranteed; only that it is likely. So I would get extremely worried if the voice of G-d were shut down. Of course, both some but not all atheists and some but not all religionists get annoyed at this kind of argument.

As for signal-to-noise ratio, J.L. Kelly gave the definitive answer to that, back in the 1950s. Interestingly, if the signal-to-noise ratio gets to less than zero, we get imaginary results (or complex) which should give us faster than light travel. Unfortunately, no such animal as negative signal; just signals not properly interpreted.