|
 zouden
Neuroscientist
 
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
 Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory.  [Re: Silversoul]
#10056423 - 03/27/09 07:54 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Darwinian evolution still predicts that we'd never find a possum skeleton in the Triassic because they hadn't evolved then. Though I suppose that doesn't necessarily indicate natural selection.
On the other hand, natural selection has been observed in the lab.
--------------------
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
|
 DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Silversoul]
#10056434 - 03/27/09 07:55 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Youre claiming that you cant falsify the idea that pressures from nature allow some members of a species to reproduce more than others?
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
#10056588 - 03/27/09 08:14 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Lets just remember the difference between 'natural selection' which is a logical truth for
genetically reproducing life forms, and the THEORY OF EVOLUTION which says that the diversity of organic life on earth arose purely due to the forces of natural selection
--------------------
 
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10056624 - 03/27/09 08:21 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Right. So there's no point arguing over natural selection, because it's obvious that it's at least possible. The debate is really over whether life on earth arose via evolution.
--------------------
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
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10056649 - 03/27/09 08:24 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
*diversity of life. Just have to nitpick, the theory of evolution by natural selection says nothing about what started life.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
#10056680 - 03/27/09 08:27 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, very good point 
--------------------
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
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
#10056785 - 03/27/09 08:42 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
IF you believe that god planted life on earth then why not just believe that god continues to influence the universe? If you feel that god interviened in the universe once then why would it be unreasonable to just say that god interviened again and again, causing large scale shifts in species types which evolution has trouble explaining?
IF you believe it was an alien race then how did the alien race come to be?
If god made his creatures adaptable because he did not know how the world would plan out, then this would all make sense, except we would have to then accept humans as a chance outcome of god's work that he himself would be surprised about, unless he knew exactly how the future was going to turn out, in which case evolution is merely the universe unfolding according to a great plan, which was indeed a popular idea before Darwin's.
Anyway, maybe one does indeed believe that god merely implanted the incredibly complex dna system onto a perfectly positioned earth as some experiment in life. I am impartial to this theory... I think it is the most plausible of God scenarios, but I also think that it is a discourse that is taken when one cannot fathom how this complex system can arise through standard physical processes that have gone on for all time. I do not think a lack of ability to imagine something should be reason to resort to God
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10056998 - 03/27/09 09:16 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
The idea is (and most Christians take this view, just not those in America) that evolution is God's tool for creating life. He knew that by setting up the universe with certain parameters, eventually humans would appear. Pretty clever hey?
It's the only sane option for Christianity. It puts God out of the realm of science and puts the origin of species into the realm of science. It neatly avoids conflict. That's why, decades ago, the Pope declared the Catholic church supports evolution.
--------------------
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
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10057544 - 03/27/09 11:29 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Right. so god designed just enough complexity in life to let it go forth without his intervention for millions of years eventually bringing forth humans at which point he intervenes again for a few hundred years on a specific part of the earth. look i just think you have to stretch your notion of God so far from how the bible depicts him that to hold onto the notion of Christ seems.. unfounded?
so much picking and choosing of favourite parts of scriptures..
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10057769 - 03/28/09 12:31 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Right. so god designed just enough complexity in life to let it go forth without his intervention for millions of years eventually bringing forth humans at which point he intervenes again for a few hundred years on a specific part of the earth.
Or.... God is the source of novelty itself, from which evolution proceeds.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10058154 - 03/28/09 02:19 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Right. so god designed just enough complexity in life to let it go forth without his intervention for millions of years eventually bringing forth humans at which point he intervenes again for a few hundred years on a specific part of the earth.
He didn't even need to create 'just enough' complexity, since there's also scientific theories about how life could have arisen from chemicals. As long as he ensured the right conditions existed on Earth he could guarantee that humans would have appeared eventually.
And yeah, he rested until humans started doing interesting things. That's the 7th day, remember? The Catholics believe that the 'days' described in Genesis are 'eons', so that each day can represent millions or billions of years. The 6 days represents the development of the universe up until humans evolved. On the 7th day God rested.
Quote:
look i just think you have to stretch your notion of God so far from how the bible depicts him that to hold onto the notion of Christ seems.. unfounded?
I think you're overestimating how much of the bible deals with the creation of the earth. It's really just a tiny fraction right at the start. The bible doesn't depict God as this guy who hand-made all the animals. It basically just says 'then the next day he made plants and stuff', so it's certainly open to interpretation.
I don't believe in God at all, but I can still see that the Catholics have made a wise choice.
--------------------
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
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10061434 - 03/28/09 06:31 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I didn't mean to take this long getting back here. Life happens; we adapt.
The main purpose of this thread has been accomplished. The fact that Michael Ruse (who I really don't like), an atheist and a evolutionist, is now admitting evolution isn't so much science as it is a social construction is interesting to me. So much so I bought the book to review it. I don't think Ruse is a very good philosopher so I will be particularly interested in how it takes Kuhn to task. I've always admired Kuhn and well as Popper, even though I see some shortcomings in each of their thought (Kuhn more than Popper).
A few side issues arose as was expected and I'll make a brief comment on each. Others may respond or not, of course, depending on their inclination. I'm just stating up front I'd rather discuss those issues in another thread. Each side issue can be found plastered across the Internet. The arguments, their points and counterpoints, are nothing new. One thing is certain, resolution is rarely found.
Ice says evolution is the best theory we have. Quite true, if we limit ourselves to history based on empiricism. Fortunately for us, other tools are available. I think we should remember that is the past is always a story. The Bible has a creation story; so does natural history. The argument about evolution has always been, and always will be, the theological issues surrounding it.
Many statements were made about ID and evolution. Krypto2000 started us off. As LakeFingers pointed out about evolution, few people are sufficiently educated on it. They don't know what it means or what it is. Redrawing seems to understand it better than most that posted. Perhaps s/he will join us in another thread if we end up discussing it.
Ice also alluded to the tendency to think of mankind as the acme of evolution. Man is not only the best thinker, he is radically different from every other animal. In fact, more than an animal. The philosophical argument behind that is one of my favorites. It ties in with krypto2000's post on the fishing orangutan. That's an interesting photo. It's a shame orangutan's don't eat fish.
I would be interested to hear why Lakefinger's doesn't seem to care for Ruse.
SilverSoul was the only one to tackle the focus of the thread head on.
I would like to touch on zouden's proposition that evolution could be falsified if we were to find an anomalous fossil. Unfortunately there are two problems here. The first is the ability of people to dismiss anomalies if they don't fit the prevailing paradigm. I'd turn to Kuhn for examples of this. Secondly, we've already had plenty of fossil anomalies and misinterpretations galore. It has done nothing to make evolutionists question the validity of the theory. Evolutionary theorists either ignore the evidence or create some post hoc interpretation, in other words, a new twist to the story. A few years ago (I only mention this in passing) blood was found in dinosaur bones. It falsified nothing.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10061464 - 03/28/09 06:35 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Why wouldn't dinosaurs have blood?
--------------------
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
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10061613 - 03/28/09 06:53 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
We don't normally find blood in fossils. Remember, they're supposed to be 65-230 million years old, depending on whose calendar you're using. But thank you for providing an living example of how fossil anomalies don't change a thing.
--------------------
|
Trepiodos
Disgustipated
Registered: 06/30/06
Posts: 469
Loc: Los Angeles County Jail
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10061688 - 03/28/09 07:04 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I think the essence of evolution is that the organism that is best capable of surviving when the environment changes, is the one most likely to pass on it's genetic code. It is not always the fastest, strongest, largest or greatest intellect that survives, sometimes it may be the organism that requires the least energy or effort for survival. So, what is the acme of evolution in one situation is quite possibly a dead end in another. It is quite a nice theory, but creating reproducible results based on the theory is quite problematic. When scientists can induce (for instance) light sensing organs to develop in an organism that is not currently equipped with them and then other scientists can reproduce the outcome and the descendants of the critters will be similarly equipped, then maybe we can point to evolution as a genuine scientific theory. Until then, we'll just have to admit that evolution is a damn sight closer to being a scientific theory than creationism, which has an even smaller chance of being verified - about as good as the proverbial snowball's chance in hell.
--------------------
And as things fell apart,
Nobody paid much attention...
- David Byrne, '(Nothing But) Flowers' from the Talking Heads' album, 'Naked'
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10061719 - 03/28/09 07:09 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
We don't normally find blood in fossils. Remember, they're supposed to be 65-230 million years old, depending on whose calendar you're using. But thank you for providing an living example of how fossil anomalies don't change a thing.
How is that a fossil anomaly? We don't normally find soft tissue in fossils either, which is why it was so exciting when we did.
Evolution never said that dinosaurs didn't have blood, so where's the anomaly?
--------------------
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
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10061800 - 03/28/09 07:22 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
If you don't mind I'd rather discuss the issue in another thread sometime. These side issues can become long and elaborate. I'd rather focus on the philosophical issues Ruse raises.
Thanks.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10061964 - 03/28/09 07:46 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
No worries
--------------------
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
|
awesomebastard
Lost
Registered: 12/16/07
Posts: 4,891
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10062138 - 03/28/09 08:11 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting I suppose, but it seems to imply that we dont have fossil records to support the theory of evolution, when, in fact we do.
--------------------
"Absolute certainty is a privilege of uneducated minds and fanatics." ~ C.J. Keyser
Mr. Cypher said: "I just tell the girls how sexy I am and their panties melt."
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: awesomebastard]
#10062585 - 03/28/09 09:19 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, we have only about.. one half way species. the bird lizard. even that is under question. although we should not neccessarily expect to have fossils from all stages of an evolutionary cycle (especially considering the times of highest competition and evolutionary push would be times when carcasses were torn apart and eaten, instead of being buried under mud), the fact that we DO NOT have any evidence of a creature that had a 'semi developed' feature, and we know that fully developed features cannot just occur on an animal within a generation, because the precise nature of the mutation makes it as likely as winning a Galactic Lottery.
So there is not evidence to evolution as a means of developing new species. There is only evidence as a means of change in general characteristics of a species. there is also evidence AGAINST bible's account of creationism. But no evidence FOR the theory of evolution
--------------------
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
sir tripsalot
World Spirit
Anonymous
SkorpivoMusterion
superfine
angryshroom