Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: 
|
 Deconstructing evolution. 
#11540541 - 11/28/09 01:54 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I want to share the questionability of evolution, as I understand it.
Part one:
Do we recognize a difference between evolution and genealogical study? Do we recognize the existential inherence of uttering "evolution", in its very own profundity?
By that I am asking the question, what is the burden of context in representing evolution in the barest sense; in a given thought, or as we subsequently refer to it? Especially problematic to this burdensome context is one of "evidence", which problematically, is how the notion arose. It is simple to accept and embrace genealogical evidence and its perfect use for deconstructing inglorious institutions, but what follows in a matter of speaking, or representing evidently as "evolution", (the said prospect of being)...is well...questionable.
What has essentially added up to as evolution, (that is what we are now speaking to for its signification) is evidently an irreconcilable variety of humanely contrived biologisms. For instance, the following cannot actually be considered the sum parts of a unified theory of evolution, and actually points to essential contradictions in what we might by any additive mean, consider so much as evident in that way.
If each of these pictures is arepresentation of evolution, which one is evolution, in its evidential presence?
Edited by daytripper23 (11/28/09 02:22 AM)
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
I should point out that the 2nd picture's genealogy is misconceived, but I hope its understood that those specifics have little bearing on what I am saying (if you can actually read german).
From The Origin of Species:
Quote:
From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off; and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state. As we here and there see a thin straggling branch springing from a fork low down in a tree, and which by some chance has been favoured and is still alive on its summit, so we occasionally see an animal like the Ornithorhynchus or Lepidosiren, which in some small degree connects by its affinities two large branches of life, and which has apparently been saved from fatal competition by having inhabited a protected station. As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications.
"From the diagram and from the text Darwin was very careful to neither imply nor refute a universal common ancestor. The Tree of Life referred to “all the beings of the same class” and not to all life on Earth. There might be one Tree or several. Darwin could not know and does not proffer an answer. Darwin wanted the reader to be very, very clear that the Tree of Life is a metaphor. In one sentence he calls it a “representation” and in the next a “simile.”
[url= http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/663/comment-page-1]The modern tree of life[/url]
|
 Germican
Wyld Stallyn
Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 325
Last seen: 8 months, 27 days
|
|
Evolution incorporates a much broader sense than genealogy. Evolution has taken place and follows a fairly logical process in its simplest form. The process of survival of the fittest is a fair example of how evolution is promoted. Simply over a long period of time the random effects of mutations and genetic variation can change an entire species for the best.
Lets view eyes for example. The eagle is known for its ability to pinpoint food from a great distance. Predating this ability during the evolution of the eye in animals it started as a very crude detection method. Over time creatures with eyes developed eyes very very slightly differently based on genetic coding and the proteins created by this. Randomly a genetic sequence may be mutated and produce a slightly different protein that allows for a slight improvement in the structure or function of the eye. This slight increase in sight would give this animal an advantage over the other animals of its species. This advantage MAY allow the animal to live longer based on being able to see predators or danger better allowing it to produce more offspring than a standard animal of its species. If it then passes down this gene to a few of it's offspring they then will posses a similar advantage and therefor may be able to produce more offspring and ect.
That in essence is a simple form of evolution. It is all based on the requirements of a given environment. Those that in some way shape or form received a small quality that made it more survivable in its given environment. With the numbers of animals in species each new born exibits a 1 in 100,000,000 chance (made up figure for emphasis)that a part of their genetic code changes allowing the creation of a slightly different protein that will slightly change them towards an advantage. The odds might be very very low but with time it can happen.
So i do not feel any of the presented pictures follow evolution. Evolution takes place over such a long period of time that none of the pictures show enough detail to express these slight changes. They are limited due to space and time to categorize species in more or less blocks. They do not simply change from one stated name in any of the above pictures to the next categorization in one change.
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Germican]
#11540969 - 11/28/09 04:15 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It is precisely my point that evolution is much more than genealogy, but also, there is a recognition that genealogy seems to be all we have in the way of actual evidence.
As you can see, I ordered the pictures in a thoughtful, contrived manner, to illustrate what one might mistakenly consider "natural" in sum or progression - from an unbiased splash of speciation, to tree-forms, to "exclusively" man. Indeed, this is not so much as evolution, but we rely on this much at least to give evolution life in the contrivance of language: In this spoken precision, evolution only reveals the problems inherent of ontology. (onto-being, logos word)
Quote:
So i do not feel any of the presented pictures follow evolution. Evolution takes place over such a long period of time that none of the pictures show enough detail to express these slight changes. They are limited due to space and time to categorize species in more or less blocks. They do not simply change from one stated name in any of the above pictures to the next categorization in one change.
Agreed. Rhetorically speaking, as a transcendence, "evolution" is only so much as what we might insinuate it as "flow". Such designation is only so articulate in discussion, but it does somehow hold bearing. For instance, "Go with the flow" can be understood as meaningful, as advice that might change the way we behave. Yet coming from a contrivance, such a conception burdens evolution with so much more than its ideal weight, that "it" - evolution itself, may be thought of as some kind of technological watercraft floating in its own current.
And we can't deny that this is the case, can we? We can't disregard the being centered representation of evolution that is often called humanism, (the bottom pic) for its logos is that by which all our biologisms are contrived. Technology and the contrivance of language must go with the stream of evolution, as evolution.
What I am saying, is we can only give weight to evolution, as it is thus referenced in its own stream, and we are positively burdened by that freedom for conception. If we choose to forget what is the watercraft, and what was the original stream of Evolution, it can begin to mean anything we "want" it to, insomuch that we are free to think and choose our actions on the same level that we observe evolutionary phenomena.
But in the freedom of conception itself, there are certain degrees of contrast to what we "strictly" observe or represent, and what we are emerged in: The pictures show varying degrees of that "centrism". Above the humanistic portrait, are two portraits by Ernst Haeckel, an early proponent of evolution. Specifically note the one that holds menschen (man) at the top, either sharing or dictating the world. Above the trees pictures is more like a "splash page", not entirely unbiased, but moving in that direction.
So a problem with representing Evolution as a unified concept, is that this difference I am elaborating is itself essential to what evolution is, in comprising logos as such. But of course all these pictures cannot simultaneously be portrayed. Each of these pictures is not only different, but precisely antithetical to the next. Thus, such difference is not actually revealed in mere genealogical differentiation. In a grander philosophic sense, there is a certain existential prerogative of "Otherness" to evolution, just as much as one of self interest. When this is all thrown together by such a yearning and yet isolated mind, static or unified conceptions are recognized (solely) as ideal.
--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
|
Representing evolution is a messy, nasty thing. Genealogy as well. It's an interesting idea: can we have evolution of cultural institutions (not really, natural sciences are burned by humanists and social scientists when they attempt to study "social structures". And what is a social structure if one defines everything as natural?)
If we take Foucault's genealogy, how can we see institutions as 'arbitrary historical practices' and not also as part of natural processes. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is IMO very problematic to fall for a dualism wherein you think that cultural phenomenon are not related to or dependent on biological and natural phenomena.
So even after studying Foucault and appreciating him relegating his study to social genealogies, I don't think he sufficiently meets, clarifies or answers question as to whether these institutions are in fact brought about by a survival of the fittest and not just thought-provoked arbitrary power struggles as the more dualist interpretation goes.
Another thing I often wonder about with genealogy and evolution are the forms it represents in its metaphors and schematics. We have one species after another, between them is a line or an arrow, what happens there? Does an H. sapiens suddenly pop out of the vagina of its predecessor. No, there are of course different theories about this. But the point is that the representation itself is a shoddy representation: it is a map, not the territory and all the transitional phases and essences not interesting for the view of the mapmaker are removed from sight. Seeing the flow is a matter of perspective/angle, and how fast you can play the separate frames to better represent the actual flow.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Lakefingers]
#11541122 - 11/28/09 05:41 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
P.S. You can say much of the problem with the representation of evolution is that it is normalizing and bound to its Zeitgeist.
|
MindGorilla
Stranger
Registered: 10/27/06
Posts: 285
Loc: Detroit
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Lakefingers]
#11541251 - 11/28/09 07:40 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Okay you guys seem way to smart for me, but I must say the more I think about evolution, the stupider it gets.
Okay we came from monkeys? Okay they came from fish? Okay we came from spunges? Now what?
I don't get whats the point of evolution, that we changed? That we weren't created by God? What does evolution have to do with God?
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 3 months, 28 days
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: MindGorilla]
#11541311 - 11/28/09 08:34 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
well, the main thing it 'has to do with god' is that it is not what was written in the bible
--------------------
 
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,832
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Lakefingers]
#11541538 - 11/28/09 10:27 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Representing evolution is a messy, nasty thing
Not so much imo. Unless of course you are representing to people who are basically uneducated. When I look at those charts I can fill in the empty spaces and I'm by far not the brightest star in the sky. People who have very little experience in critical thought or have few developed skills in critical deduction will falter in understanding what's being presented. The fact that most people don't understand the concepts behind evolution and that process makes talking to them about it very risky if not downright futile.
I always consider myself fairly dumb until I look around.
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: MindGorilla]
#11547129 - 11/29/09 06:28 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MindGorilla said:
Okay you guys seem way to smart for me, but I must say the more I think about evolution, the stupider it gets.
Okay we came from monkeys? Okay they came from fish? Okay we came from spunges? Now what?
I don't get whats the point of evolution, that we changed? That we weren't created by God? What does evolution have to do with God?
By "now what?" do you mean that the Theory of Evolution is just a pointless abstraction that has little bearing on our daily lives? Or--?
The point of evolution is unknown. There doesn't seem to be a point with evolution. The point with evolutionary theory is to describe how organisms arise, change, develop, etc. It's not there to challenge or prove God. If God were to turn up in the evidence, then fine, but so far God's hasn't shown up in the evidence so God's not relevant for it. What evolution usually has to do with God is that people who believe in a certain type of God that created Earth find the theory of evolution to threaten their worldview.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Icelander]
#11547134 - 11/29/09 06:33 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
Representing evolution is a messy, nasty thing
Not so much imo. Unless of course you are representing to people who are basically uneducated. When I look at those charts I can fill in the empty spaces and I'm by far not the brightest star in the sky. People who have very little experience in critical thought or have few developed skills in critical deduction will falter in understanding what's being presented. The fact that most people don't understand the concepts behind evolution and that process makes talking to them about it very risky if not downright futile.
I always consider myself fairly dumb until I look around.
The problem with the representation is just that it appeals to the education, it requires a lot of assumptions and mostly the charts and metaphorical representations of evolution easily can mislead because of this. People can mistake the map for the territory and get angry, confused, etc.
And when you look around you find you're dumber than you thought?  (Philosophy teachers love this type of simple, ambiguous meaning as found in your statement.)
|
rizingfire
Mycoticus psychoticus
Registered: 09/10/07
Posts: 745
Loc: North-east USm'f'nA
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Lakefingers]
#11547315 - 11/29/09 09:01 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Evolution is a fairy tale for adults who want to deny the existence of God in an attempt to remove all ideas of consequence of actions, as if you aren't found guilty of breaking the law even if you didn't know it.
As for the comment on the Bible I don't get what you are saying. The Bible is the only book of it's kind that is filled with profound knowledge that dictates how to handle every aspect of your life....My life is proof of it's truthfulness and the blessings are part of the reward...I always considered myself too intelligent to believe in evolution...there are only 3,000 scientifically proven facts disproving and negating Darwins theory alltogether...funny we never hear about it thanks to the lying liberal media...
--------------------
Please check out the Classified for us.
Free Prints,Contests, Prizes... Go to www.Shroomotopia.com
You want to go to Shroomotopia.net
You need to go to Shroomotopia.net
You love Shroomotopia.net
|
OrgoneConclusion
Rico Suave
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 35,295
Loc: Candyland
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: rizingfire]
#11547400 - 11/29/09 09:56 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I always considered myself too intelligent to believe in evolution
You may be alone in that assessment.
Just sayin'...
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,832
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Lakefingers]
#11547489 - 11/29/09 10:24 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
The point of evolution is unknown.
This imo is the number one misconception about evolution. That evolution has a goal or a point.
Thanks for pointing that out. 
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,832
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: rizingfire]
#11547493 - 11/29/09 10:25 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
rizingfire said:
Evolution is a fairy tale for adults who want to deny the existence of God in an attempt to remove all ideas of consequence of actions, as if you aren't found guilty of breaking the law even if you didn't know it.
As for the comment on the Bible I don't get what you are saying. The Bible is the only book of it's kind that is filled with profound knowledge that dictates how to handle every aspect of your life....My life is proof of it's truthfulness and the blessings are part of the reward...I always considered myself too intelligent to believe in evolution...there are only 3,000 scientifically proven facts disproving and negating Darwins theory alltogether...funny we never hear about it thanks to the lying liberal media...
  
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,832
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
I always considered myself too intelligent to believe in evolution
You may be alone in that assessment.
Just sayin'...
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 3 months, 28 days
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: rizingfire]
#11547639 - 11/29/09 11:03 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
rizingfire said:
Evolution is a fairy tale for adults who want to deny the existence of God in an attempt to remove all ideas of consequence of actions, as if you aren't found guilty of breaking the law even if you didn't know it.
As for the comment on the Bible I don't get what you are saying. The Bible is the only book of it's kind that is filled with profound knowledge that dictates how to handle every aspect of your life....My life is proof of it's truthfulness and the blessings are part of the reward...I always considered myself too intelligent to believe in evolution...there are only 3,000 scientifically proven facts disproving and negating Darwins theory alltogether...funny we never hear about it thanks to the lying liberal media...
you could make this into a sensible post by sharing some of these 3,000 scientific disproofs of evolution
--------------------
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: rizingfire]
#11548084 - 11/29/09 12:58 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
rizingfire said:
Evolution is a fairy tale for adults who want to deny the existence of God in an attempt to remove all ideas of consequence of actions, as if you aren't found guilty of breaking the law even if you didn't know it.
As for the comment on the Bible I don't get what you are saying. The Bible is the only book of it's kind that is filled with profound knowledge that dictates how to handle every aspect of your life....My life is proof of it's truthfulness and the blessings are part of the reward...I always considered myself too intelligent to believe in evolution...there are only 3,000 scientifically proven facts disproving and negating Darwins theory alltogether...funny we never hear about it thanks to the lying liberal media...
Please explain to us how evolution removes moral responsibility from us.
Can you please tell me how the Bible is more profound that the other religious texts at the center of world religions just as old and just about as extensive or more-so than Christianity?
I personally have read many books and I have no idea why I would hang up on the Bible to "dictate" 'every aspect of my life'. This sounds like self-imposed, vicious ignorance to me.
Is the Koran not proof the truthfulness of the words of their prophet?
And as Noteworthy said, please present these 3,000 "scientifically proven facts disproving evolution".
Does it, by the way, worry you that scientists would lie to you about a theory as vast and fundamental as evolution and at the same time provide disproofs of it. In other words, why would you trust the counter-evidence when it's coming from the same community?
It seems to me, that even if these 3,000 disproofs exist (which I know beforehand they do not, sorry, pal), that you accept those disproofs because they fit your belief system better than evolution. And not because you have studied or reasoned about either.
In other words, I can understand why evolution seems so terrible if you lack any of the rational attitude it requires to weigh the fors and againsts in a scientific way (also known as ignorance, check up the word at the dictionary link above).
Also, take this as a warning, if you're not up for debating these issues stay out of this forum with them. This is a debate-oriented forum.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,832
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Lakefingers]
#11548166 - 11/29/09 01:18 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I find it interesting how Christians here often have such low ratings. Think it has anything to do with them telling the rest of us we are hell bound?
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
OrgoneConclusion
Rico Suave
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 35,295
Loc: Candyland
|
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Icelander]
#11548194 - 11/29/09 01:22 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps such people are the best evidence against evilution.
Just sayin' 
--------------------
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Rev. Morton, Diploid
1,541 topic views. 5 members, 17 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
