Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Next >
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: redgreenvines]
    #10172052 - 04/15/09 02:47 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

ya


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: redgreenvines]
    #10172193 - 04/15/09 03:17 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
Evolution as a Natural Science, incorporates things as they are, and as they have been discovered naturally with no philosophical conflicts.
It is a beautiful model bridging chemistry, genetics, geology and meteorology as well as astronomy. It is simple, and has no political intentions.

Many are challenged by it, many are incapable of putting ideology aside long enough to understand that this is simple natural science, an accumulation of even-handed and even-minded observations without interference. It finds acceptance where there is avoidance of denial of what exists, and where memory serves to retain facts that were known a few minutes ago.

Acceptance of the geological fossil record helps prove things that would be expected to have happened a long time ago.

Evolution as an idea could have been derived from observation alone without any excavation. It does not need a clergy, or a book of instructions, it is natural.




Horseshit on several levels.

1)  Any science has as its foundation philosophical underpinings.  These are nearly always unknown by practitioners (and admirers) of science.

2) Evolution is as connected to natural theology as any religion.  Saying otherwise don't make it so.  Nearly every historical reconstruction--mislabeled science by many--has theological implications.

3)  Science is only simple to the naive and simple-minded.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,008
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10172534 - 04/15/09 04:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Mr. mushrooms,
that is a profoundly egoistical and ungodly response,
I am ashamed for you
I will crush small rocks tonight in my caves for your issue
may you be accidentally relieved of ignorance without pain or embarrassment.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10172549 - 04/15/09 04:27 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

zouden said:
Telescopes, microscopes, fossils: all just tools.




No, that's a categorical error.  In the case of the telescope we observe a star in the midst of a supernova expansion; in the case of the microscope we observe a cell under mitosis.  Where do we directly observe speciation?  Nowhere.



But the light from the star has taken millions of years to reach us. We've never observed a supernova live (no one could, they'd be killed by it). But to the astronomer, watching a supernova occur over several days through his telescope, he could happily say that he's directly observed it. To an evolutionary biologist, finding a fossil that clearly shows an evolutionary relationship between one species and another is as much a direct observation as that of the astronomer. It happened millions of years ago, but then, so did the supernova.

Quote:

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
This is really central to the thread.  I can only surmise that most of us are more familiar with the arguments being offered than the idea that science is culturally driven.  Since that is the case, its conclusions, especially in the case of historical events, are suspect.




Oh come on. Does your argument really come down to little more than an ad hominem? You can do better than that.




1)  It isn't my argument.  I am merely reporting on the book.
2)  What ad hominem?  I don't understand what you are saying.




1) Yes, sorry if I've conflated your argument with that of the book, but you seem to be in complete agreeance with it so it feels like your argument is one and the same.
2) "Science is culturally driven, so its conclusions are suspect" - an ad hominem. You can't disagree with conclusions just by attacking the motivations behind the science. The fact that science is often culturally driven has no bearings on the results whatsoever.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: redgreenvines] * 1
    #10172802 - 04/15/09 05:05 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
Mr. mushrooms,
that is a profoundly egoistical and ungodly response,
I am ashamed for you
I will crush small rocks tonight in my caves for your issue
may you be accidentally relieved of ignorance without pain or embarrassment.




And my love, respect and honor for your positions grows and grows.  They are simply a delight.

We're lucky to have your posts with us.  :heart:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: redgreenvines]
    #10172807 - 04/15/09 05:06 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

That wasn't too smarmy, was it?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,008
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10173979 - 04/15/09 08:27 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

a halo is waiting for you most assuredly
but you are a very bad boy in my books because of this thread
you know nothing substantive about either science or evolution
but I don't think it is entirely your fault.
did you ever read Stephen King?


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: redgreenvines]
    #10174040 - 04/15/09 08:37 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
a halo is waiting for you most assuredly
but you are a very bad boy in my books because of this thread
you know nothing substantive about either science or evolution
but I don't think it is entirely your fault.
did you ever read Stephen King?




Thank you.  No, I honestly tried but I much prefer Dean Koontz.  In fact, I just picked up a used copy of Fear Nothing at a thrift store with the intention of reading it again.

I'd like to think I understand science more than most practitioners.  Not only have I used science as a tool in the laboratory, I've studied in intensely in philosophy.  Besides which I have been studying evolution deeply for the past 20-some years, philosophically and scientifically.  It's my contention that evolution offers a partial truth--the most dangerous kind.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,008
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10174102 - 04/15/09 08:47 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

your studies should show that people offer partial truths
what I am bringing to the fore is that they are very inclined to share their fantasies and nightmares.
both dean and stephen are very bad boys


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10174160 - 04/15/09 08:59 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:

But the light from the star has taken millions of years to reach us. We've never observed a supernova live (no one could, they'd be killed by it). But to the astronomer, watching a supernova occur over several days through his telescope, he could happily say that he's directly observed it. To an evolutionary biologist, finding a fossil that clearly shows an evolutionary relationship between one species and another is as much a direct observation as that of the astronomer. It happened millions of years ago, but then, so did the supernova.




There is a large difference between experiencing a direct percept, i.e. light from a supernova, and looking at old fossils.  I admit that is a very ingenious argument though.

Quote:

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

1)  It isn't my argument.  I am merely reporting on the book.
2)  What ad hominem?  I don't understand what you are saying.




1) Yes, sorry if I've conflated your argument with that of the book, but you seem to be in complete agreeance with it so it feels like your argument is one and the same.
2) "Science is culturally driven, so its conclusions are suspect" - an ad hominem. You can't disagree with conclusions just by attacking the motivations behind the science. The fact that science is often culturally driven has no bearings on the results whatsoever.




Well, yes, there are parts of the book that I agree with.  In that sense, those could be called mine.  But, as there are parts of the book I don't particularly agree with, it (the argument) isn't mine.

Your number two isn't really an ad hominem for science isn't a man.  Ad hominem literally means "to the man."  You're correct though.  Just because a conclusion is reached by cultural motivations it certainly doesn't mean the conclusions are automatically incorrect--but, given the nature of man (and remembering science is a creation of man), Kuhn's paradigm idea states that, for a time, a bias may reside over a group of facts leading to an erroneous conclusion.  How?  Well, for one thing, ignoring anomalies.  I certainly agree with Kuhn there.  I've seen it too many times.

Many times scientists want to place science, and themselves, above reproach.

Science cannot be incorrect.  :lecture:

And to that, I say, nonsense.

These paradigms control much more of science than many of us would be comfortable with, zouden.  Remember we were discussing how difficult it was for Darwin to get his theory accepted?  Now if scientists, and science, were as objective as Popper would have us believe, and Darwin's theory had the weight it had/has it should have been immediately embraced by the whole scientific community.  Yet, it wasn't.  Why?  Because scientists--the practitioners of science--are not nearly as objective as they would like to think they are.  This is especially true of theories not subject to immediate testing.  The more extrapolation a theory needs for evidence, the more subject to bias it is.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: redgreenvines]
    #10174180 - 04/15/09 09:03 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
your studies should show that people offer partial truths
what I am bringing to the fore is that they are very inclined to share their fantasies and nightmares.
both dean and stephen are very bad boys





Precisely.  I am continually impressed by the obliqueness of your ideas.  It's like a flanking maneuver that cuts one off at the legs.

Now, how does that correlate to the topic at hand?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10175857 - 04/16/09 01:44 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Your number two isn't really an ad hominem for science isn't a man.  Ad hominem literally means "to the man." 



Yes, but I couldn't think of a better name for that fallacy. I think it's appropriate, though it doesn't seem so.

Quote:

You're correct though.  Just because a conclusion is reached by cultural motivations it certainly doesn't mean the conclusions are automatically incorrect--but, given the nature of man (and remembering science is a creation of man), Kuhn's paradigm idea states that, for a time, a bias may reside over a group of facts leading to an erroneous conclusion.



But this is exactly the sort of problem that science is good at solving. The fact that science must be open to new ideas (since that's how it works) works to mitigate issues like personal bias.

Quote:

These paradigms control much more of science than many of us would be comfortable with, zouden.  Remember we were discussing how difficult it was for Darwin to get his theory accepted?  Now if scientists, and science, were as objective as Popper would have us believe, and Darwin's theory had the weight it had/has it should have been immediately embraced by the whole scientific community.  Yet, it wasn't.  Why?  Because scientists--the practitioners of science--are not nearly as objective as they would like to think they are.  This is especially true of theories not subject to immediate testing.  The more extrapolation a theory needs for evidence, the more subject to bias it is.




But nobody said that science has to work fast. It doesn't matter how long it took Darwin's ideas to get accepted. Given enough time, the truth is always made clear in the end.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineyageman
already dead
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/06
Posts: 4,965
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10176013 - 04/16/09 02:57 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

Its intelligent design.

Thats what it is.

Thats what sets it in motion.

Evolution is religions best friend.

Evolution is a very scientific theory and its sad that some people would rather just talk shit about it like a bunch of apes rather than simply reading about the truth of the matter.

There is your magic religious people!

There is your proof!
Handed to you by science.

There are different ways of expecting the universe to be I guess.....
No matter your sect.


--------------------
[quote]Me_Roy said:
You moron. Material is material is material.  No 'thing' fixes any situation.  If anything were so simple we would be living in a much better world.[/quote] <-----the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.
Thanks shroomery.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,008
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: yageman]
    #10176144 - 04/16/09 04:30 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

I will be very happy to leave you and mr. mushrooms to hash that out.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10176148 - 04/16/09 04:31 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

zouden said:

But the light from the star has taken millions of years to reach us. We've never observed a supernova live (no one could, they'd be killed by it). But to the astronomer, watching a supernova occur over several days through his telescope, he could happily say that he's directly observed it. To an evolutionary biologist, finding a fossil that clearly shows an evolutionary relationship between one species and another is as much a direct observation as that of the astronomer. It happened millions of years ago, but then, so did the supernova.




There is a large difference between experiencing a direct percept, i.e. light from a supernova, and looking at old fossils.  I admit that is a very ingenious argument though.






I asked several times for a definition of speciation such that we could not observe it and I never understood your replies- you never stated what it was or why we couldn't observe it if you were using standard definitions.


Is this what you mean?  We can't observe it because fossils are somehow not direct enough?


What is indirect about fossils at all, in any way?  Unless you reject the notion of fossils altogether (devil tricking us, et cet) then I fail to see how it isn't a direct observation.


Zouden's argument doesn't seem ingenuous to me, it seems obvious and perfectly rational- it is impossible to view the world without using tools and snapshots in time.  Bones are not some ethereal construct of species, they are a part of the body.  In many cases their will be relatively obvious differences in the fossil along a line of species bearing relationships. 


How are you making a distinction here?  Is by "not observe" you mean you cannot sit in a lawn chair for a spell and see it in one genetic lineage? 


Is astronomy not a science?  Much of chemistry, microbiology, genetics, geology, palentology of course, psychology.... You get my drift? 


Do you accept mutations and their evidence?  What is the distinction between them and evolutionary evidence which makes these observations valid or relevant?


Could you clearly explain what the difference is between evolutionary and astronomical evidence or what exactly you object to with regards to evolutionary evidence?  I just don't see the distinctions you seem to make and so I'm not sure your point.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,008
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: johnm214]
    #10176262 - 04/16/09 06:00 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

you can watch speciation through the records up to the present, you just can't predict evolution or watch things evolve in real time, since it is generational.
evolution becomes obvious in retrospect.

the fallacy here is that engineering is a predictive scientific application, and mr. mushrooms is showing that evolution is not a science of that type.
it is not mathematically predictive.

however, something is very wrong about the vigor with which he is defending very odd positions in peripheral issues.
we have to face it.
many scientists are crack pots and  mistakes can be made while picking lab assistants, and then one thing leads to another then this!


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10176951 - 04/16/09 10:15 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

Let me take some time to address a few issues even though they aren't directly from the book.  Please though, I'd rather discuss Ruse's ideas than turn this thread into a pure discussion of evolution.  Ruse's point is that science often loses its objectivity in the face of cultural bias.  I contend the same.

As far as the fallacy goes it might be called poisoning the well.  However, if the derogatory statements are true and germane it wouldn't be a fallacy at all.

>But this is exactly the sort of problem that science is good at solving. The fact that science must be open to new ideas (since that's how it works) works to mitigate issues like personal bias.

Is it?  My statement was that a bias may reign over the whole of science because, especially in the case of historical reconstructions, science is, pointedly, the prevailing opinion of the scientists.  What you've just recited is the party line.  I understand how it works just as you do.  Ruse's point, Kuhn's, and mine, is that it doesn't work well enough.  I'll explain this in detail when I outline my personal issues with evolution theory.  Let me say again, I don't want this to be a discussion on the merits of evolution as much as I want it to be a discussion of Ruse's point, i.e. the cultural influence on scientific opinion.

Quote:

Quote:

These paradigms control much more of science than many of us would be comfortable with, zouden.  Remember we were discussing how difficult it was for Darwin to get his theory accepted?  Now if scientists, and science, were as objective as Popper would have us believe, and Darwin's theory had the weight it had/has it should have been immediately embraced by the whole scientific community.  Yet, it wasn't.  Why?  Because scientists--the practitioners of science--are not nearly as objective as they would like to think they are.  This is especially true of theories not subject to immediate testing.  The more extrapolation a theory needs for evidence, the more subject to bias it is.





But nobody said that science has to work fast. It doesn't matter how long it took Darwin's ideas to get accepted. Given enough time, the truth is always made clear in the end.




But the point remains, zouden, if these "facts" are as objective as we say they are, the acceptance should be immediate.  It isn't.  Why?  Because scientists, whose opinions comprise science, aren't always as objective as they should be.  Thus, we get faulty science.  You say temporarily.  Good.  That's the party line again.  But I assure you that if you, or any other scientist were presented with hard, cold objective facts contrary to the evolutionary paradigm, you wouldn't automatically change your opinion.  There are a number of reasons for this.  Unfamiliarity with philosophical evidence being one.

I'll withhold my objections to evolution until John's post.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10177225 - 04/16/09 11:17 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

  Because scientists, whose opinions comprise science, aren't always as objective as they should be.  Thus, we get faulty science.  You say temporarily.  Good.  That's the party line again.

I think you have a valid point, to a point. However this applies to us all including you and me. "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves" OK then we are both doing this here with our beliefs also, right?

But the fact that there are lots of scientists working on this makes it just a tad easier to keep on the straight and narrow toward fact wouldn't you say? Never perfect however.

My thing is that I haven't heard anything else that makes as much sense to me personally and I have done some looking around. Personally evolution doesn't thrill me or any of the things I have come to believe in the last several years. I had to fight my bias to get here kicking and screaming. I want a kinder gentler reality with a groovy loving creator force backing me all the way. But I don't seem to be able to convince myself of it due to the evidence I don't see for it and the evidence I do see for basic mindless evolution. Now why is that do you think?


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: johnm214]
    #10177352 - 04/16/09 11:42 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

That's a lot of questions, John.  :grin:

Nevertheless, as you took the time to ask them, I'll take the time to reply.  Please note though, I want to remain true to the focus of the thread.  If I wanted to discuss evolution only I would have started a thread on it.  I didn't.  I want to explore Ruse's ideas and see how they compare to ours, each of ours individually.

>I asked several times for a definition of speciation such that we could not observe it and I never understood your replies- you never stated what it was or why we couldn't observe it if you were using standard definitions.

Is this what you mean?  We can't observe it because fossils are somehow not direct enough?<

Precisely.  Fossils, as they are historical artifacts, are always subject to interpretation. Lucy, from the hominid line, has been interpreted as our great-grandmother by some and not related to us at all by others.

>What is indirect about fossils at all, in any way?  Unless you reject the notion of fossils altogether (devil tricking us, et cet) then I fail to see how it isn't a direct observation.<

As I explained, fossils are historical artifacts subject to interpretation.  We "see" fossils and we tell ourselves a story because that's what evolution is--a story.  Forensics works the same way, John.  I mention this because of your keen legal mind.  Police detectives assemble a series of facts and construct a story.  Sometimes the story is mere circumstantial evidence.  It can get you convicted though, can't it?  That is absolutely, unequivocally not the same as an eyewitness.  A credible eyewitness will destroy a circumstantial case before the judge's and jury's eyes.  Why?  Because they have direct observation on their side.  We don't have that and we won't have that with fossils, not now, not ever.

>Zouden's argument doesn't seem ingenuous to me, it seems obvious and perfectly rational- it is impossible to view the world without using tools and snapshots in time.  Bones are not some ethereal construct of species, they are a part of the body.  In many cases their will be relatively obvious differences in the fossil along a line of species bearing relationships.

Are they?  Fossil interpretation always relies on the mind of the observer and a belief in uniformatarianism.  There are numerous fossil anomalies swept away by a paradigm that brooks no rivals.  As I mentioned to zouden, blood was found in dinosaur bones.  Now, to me, that would automatically make the uniformatarian theory of geologic formation suspect.  Did it?  No.  Scientists merely said perhaps they didn't understand the formation of fossils as well as they thought they did.  They didn't question uniformatarianism at all.  They rushed to find answers to bolster the paradigm, again.  That's hardly what I would call objectivity.

>How are you making a distinction here?  Is by "not observe" you mean you cannot sit in a lawn chair for a spell and see it in one genetic lineage? 

Or more precisely that you cannot see one species develop from another.  And this is casting aside the philosophical issue of what constitutes a species, another thorny problem for evolutionary theory.

>Is astronomy not a science?  Much of chemistry, microbiology, genetics, geology, palentology of course, psychology.... You get my drift?

Certainly.  I also fully realize that any particular science or scientist relies on the opinions of those within their field.  Are you aware of the heated battle between paleontologists and biologists?  Paleontologists are certain that Darwinian micromorphing cannot account for the fossil record.  Hence, punk-eek.  Why?  Because when you're reconstructing a historical account, objectivity plays a minor role.

>Do you accept mutations and their evidence?  What is the distinction between them and evolutionary evidence which makes these observations valid or relevant?

Could you clearly explain what the difference is between evolutionary and astronomical evidence or what exactly you object to with regards to evolutionary evidence?  I just don't see the distinctions you seem to make and so I'm not sure your point.<

Rather than do that, let me explicate my concerns regarding evolutionary theory.

Now please, keep in mind I am not liable to get drawn into a lengthy dialogue over these pet issues of mine.  I will remain true to the purpose of the thread.  I've been hammering away at these issues for some 20-odd years.  It is highly unlikely any resolution will be found in this conversation. From Dawkins to Darwin, from Forrest to Meyer, I've surveyed this issue, attempting to make sense of life.  I'll describe my journey in several phases.

Phase one:  Believer in science and evolution.  I was taught, as many of us were taught, about the infallibility of evolution.  I ate it up.  Science was my world and explained everything.  I was young and terribly naive.  As a believer in knowing your enemy, I picked up a copy of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.

Phase two:  While reading the book, a crack appeared in the damn.  Then, or now, I haven't seen too many rebuttals that I felt were convincing.  Argument from personal incredulity I know, but nevertheless...  Never underestimate the power of a prevailing paradigm to tell you another story and so retain its power.

Phase three:  Philosophical evidence from Mortimer J. Adler and the damn burst.  The evolutionary model cannot explain the mind of man through phylogenetic continuity.  There are several books that really impressed me.  I have not seen any rebuttals to the ideas contained in them.  All of them are by Dr. Adler.  With that, let me mention a few major issues I have with the theory.

1)  The immateriality of the mind.  I've explained this numerous times here but in case you missed it, here it is.  Universals are concepts of the mind, e.g. triangle.  A particular would be an individual triangle.  Particulars are contained in matter; universals never are.  Since that is the case, the mind must be immaterial.  Since that is the case, it cannot have arisen from phylogenetic continuity. Meaning, man, at least his mind, cannot have evolved.  Neither emergent properties nor panpsychism can explain the mind.

2)  Evolution is a historical reconstruction.  It always relies on data subject to interpretation.  It isn't, to borrow a phrase, operational science.  Operational science relies on direct observation.  I can pour liquid acetic acid in a cup, add sodium bicarbonate, and the chemical reaction will produce carbon dioxide gas.  Evolution, as the ultimate explanation of life, could falsify my ideas by doing two things:  creating life by simulating the conditions under which life arose (as zouden said, the rna world hypothesis is the prevailing view.  So don't talk about it.  Do it!  Results so far? Nada) or create AI.  It is in this way my ideas are true science.  In the words of Popper, they contain the ability to be falsified.  Either of these two tests within operational science would satisfy.  I'm still waiting.

3)  In a recent paper, a mycologist was explaining his reasons for creating various clades to explain the phylogenetic lineage of fungi.  He reason was "to provide evidence for evolution"!  Really?  Why I thought we had that sorted out long ago. But the cold hard truth is...we didn't.  If that were the case, and evolution was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we would have no need for phylogenetic lineages within the mushroom kingdom.  I can hear the party line ringing in my ears.  "I have no idea why he would say that.  We can't speculate on the actions of one particular scientist.  It has no bearing on the matter at hand."  Bullshit.  It's evidence that the matter is far from closed.  In fact, it cannot be closed.  Why?  Because it's a historical reconstruction.

I have many, many more issues but those are just the ones that came into my head while I was typing this.

Hopefully, this will give the few of you reading this a window into my mind and motivation.  I should add as a corollary that part of my problem with evolution is that I don't like being lied to.  Science offered me Truth, and it turned out to be a sham.  Frankly, that pisses me off.

Comment as you will, John.  You're entitled.  Please know in advance I intent to focus on the book.

Cheers,
MM


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
    #10177363 - 04/16/09 11:44 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
  Because scientists, whose opinions comprise science, aren't always as objective as they should be.  Thus, we get faulty science.  You say temporarily.  Good.  That's the party line again.

I think you have a valid point, to a point. However this applies to us all including you and me. "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves" OK then we are both doing this here with our beliefs also, right?

But the fact that there are lots of scientists working on this makes it just a tad easier to keep on the straight and narrow toward fact wouldn't you say? Never perfect however.

My thing is that I haven't heard anything else that makes as much sense to me personally and I have done some looking around. Personally evolution doesn't thrill me or any of the things I have come to believe in the last several years. I had to fight my bias to get here kicking and screaming. I want a kinder gentler reality with a groovy loving creator force backing me all the way. But I don't seem to be able to convince myself of it due to the evidence I don't see for it and the evidence I do see for basic mindless evolution. Now why is that do you think?




I'm only reply to this because you are my friend, Ice.  I'll have to get back to it. I will, I promise.  Thanks for reading and staying with me.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Next >

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* No Evolution threads allowed.
( 1 2 all )
sir tripsalot 3,476 29 10/04/02 11:50 PM
by Anonymous
* The Idea of Evolution is BS
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
World Spirit 18,870 165 07/21/02 09:44 AM
by whiterastahippie
* Post deleted by Anno Anonymous 1,229 12 03/18/04 03:30 PM
by silversoul7
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous 4,518 64 01/30/03 06:45 AM
by Teragon
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 8,959 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Evolution Of Humans
( 1 2 all )
superfine 1,992 23 04/21/03 05:11 PM
by pattern
* What is a "theory"? Anonymous 647 5 01/15/04 07:22 AM
by anarchyhollow
* Creationism / Evolution
( 1 2 all )
angryshroom 2,497 23 11/11/03 06:29 AM
by StrangeDays

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
13,870 topic views. 0 members, 8 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.