|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Why evolution isn't a scientific theory.
#10051533 - 03/27/09 06:54 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Or so philosopher of science Michael Ruse proclaims:
Quote:
The battle of evolution and creation in America is a debate of culture, not science, said one of the leading authorities on the history and philosophy of Darwinism evolutionary theory.
Michael Ruse, a philosophy professor at Florida State University examined the history of the American evolution-creation debate Tuesday in his lecture titled “The Evolution-Creation Controversy: A Very American Story.”
Ruse said a division exists in American society between two groups of theorists: evolutionists, also called the “Brights,” and Intelligent Design Theorists.
Both of these groups think that to accept one belief, they must reject the other, Ruse said.
For example, evolutionists think that to believe in evolution, they must reject religion, and vise versa.
“What makes this discussion very interesting is that we’ve got thinking people on both sides,” Ruse said.
The question then is why people have this debate between the two sides, Ruse said.
To explain the origins of the debate, Ruse gave a history of the evolution-creation debate, starting with the early years of Christianity.
Ruse continued with a history of the life of Charles Darwin and the development of his theory of evolution, which led to his publishing of “The Origin of Species” in 1859.
Several other events led to the religious battle that began in America about Darwin’s theories, he said.
Ruse said one of these events was a movement started by Thomas Henry Huxley, a professor from London. Huxley started summer schools in the 19th century for teachers and instructed them in new disciplines of science, including evolution. Huxley promoted evolution as the new religion of the time, pushing it against Christianity, Ruse said.
“This sort of thing is the kind of way evolution got hijacked, if you like, in the 19th century,” Ruse said. “I don’t think it was hijacked for bad reasons. I don’t think Huxley was an evil person; I’m not saying that. I’m saying, though, that he got an agenda and evolution was being used in this agenda, not as a regular science, but as a kind of metaphysic kind of ideology.”
Other occurrences in America caused the creation-evolution battle to grow, including the Second Great Awakening, which caused people to read and interpret the Bible literally, and the split of the North and South after the Civil War, which caused the people of the South to use the issue of evolution as part of their reasoning to hate the people of the North.
Ruse said evolution wasn’t and isn’t now, a scientific theory, and people are not worrying about the scientific issues of it like fossil records.
“What they’re seeing is evolution is half of a particular ideology that one half wants to endorse and the other half loathes,” he said.
Jenny Colton Senior Staff Writer for TruthBook Religious News Blog
Also of interest is Dr. Ruse's book Mystery of Mysteries : Is Evolution a Social Construction? According to Dr. Ruse, evolution is more of a social contruction than a scientific theory. It the book he takes on two philosophers of science, Kuhn and Popper. Could he be correct? A review by a reader is helpful:
Quote:
Anyone who calls himself or herself a Skeptic should consider this required reading. If evolutionary biology is your thing, or if you are at all interested in how science works, or if you are interested in the philosophy of science, order it now.
--------------------
|
krypto2000
Unknown
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10051601 - 03/27/09 07:26 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I don't necessarily disagree with his point, though I do tend to be skeptical of it, but no where in that article did he even begin to explain why it's a social construct. The only thing he said was it originally was used in opposition to intelligent design to push an agenda, which doesn't mean much at all.
On a related note, I never understood why it can't be more accepted that both ID and evolution could be possible. Why could we have not simply been created to evolve?
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: krypto2000]
#10051666 - 03/27/09 07:50 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Evolution is the best working theory we have on this issue IMO.
The fact that we "need" divine intervention as a cause of our being here has never had evidential support as far as I know.
Many humans like to forget or ignore the implications of the facts that like most all other "lesser" living things, we eat, shit, fuck, stink, pick and scratch, decay, die, etc. The natural processes in our bodies are mimicked throughout nature.
It's the fragile personality structure that frantically needs to be different IMO. "How could it be that we are here only to die without a special purpose beyond what is evident"
-------------------- "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
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10051681 - 03/27/09 07:54 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I personally never for one second ignored the fact that I am basically an advanced .
It feels that most people around me do, though.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10051690 - 03/27/09 07:57 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Even "advanced" is up for debate depending on your criteria.
-------------------- "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
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10051697 - 03/27/09 08:00 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think that our ability to compose and appreciate music is but one of the many evidences of us being the most advanced species on this planet.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10051710 - 03/27/09 08:03 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
And the way we have learned to torture and cause suffering for our pleasure. Our constant anxiety and paranoia, ability to ignore facts and believe in non existent entities and kill other humans in their behalf our physical fragility compared to most other creatures. and on and on.
-------------------- "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
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10051738 - 03/27/09 08:11 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
A lot of those things are born from our 'intelligence', or over-active minds, which some say compensate for our fragile bodies.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10051746 - 03/27/09 08:13 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The reverse being true for animals. There physical prowess compensates for other lacks.
Actually if we are talking survival abilities, I go for bacteria and viruses.
-------------------- "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
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10051760 - 03/27/09 08:16 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Is the claim, "Human fragility is the result of society.", extremely presumptuous and foolish, in your opinion? I've always wondered why humans are so much weaker than some of the other animals...
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10051772 - 03/27/09 08:18 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: Actually if we are talking survival abilities, I go for bacteria and viruses.
Is this true for the individual specimen, or the species as a whole? I wouldn't know because I'm not exceptionally educated on bacteria and viruses...
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10051807 - 03/27/09 08:25 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: Is the claim, "Human fragility is the result of society.", extremely presumptuous and foolish, in your opinion? I've always wondered why humans are so much weaker than some of the other animals...
Hard to say. All evidence points to use being weaker and slower. Other wise who needs a spear?
-------------------- "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
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10051824 - 03/27/09 08:29 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Are we the only species that uses a separate apparatus as a weapon to kill other creatures?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
krypto2000
Unknown
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10052102 - 03/27/09 09:25 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: Are we the only species that uses a separate apparatus as a weapon to kill other creatures?
Monkeys throw rocks and shit, they use sticks to pick ants out of holes, and not too recently there was a picture taken of a monkey (gorilla?) using a stick to fish.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: krypto2000]
#10052135 - 03/27/09 09:32 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Shit, I didn't know about monkeys (gorillas?) using a stick to fish, that's pretty cool...
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10052173 - 03/27/09 09:43 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Evolutionary theory and the uses thereof constitute one terrible mess. I'm sorry to see so many minds trapped inside of it (and usually poor understandings of it; this includes scientists and philosophers).
Unfortunately most people I speak to immediately get flustered about my criticism of evolution and think I'm a creationist. As if critique of science were dogmatic!
About the article. Michael Ruse is OK...in hell.
|
krypto2000
Unknown
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10052174 - 03/27/09 09:43 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yah, it was a recent discovery, I don't think anyone else did before either. I wanna say it happened within this past year, but my sense of time is so off I can't be sure.
I also don't remember if they used it as a spear, or what. Memory tells me that's what happened though, they just found a sharpish stick, hung on a branch over the water (I remember that from the pic) and stabbed em.
edit: here ya go
Quote:
A male orangutan, clinging precariously to overhanging branches, flails the water with a pole, trying desperately to spear a passing fish.
It is the first time one has been seen using a tool to hunt.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: krypto2000]
#10052177 - 03/27/09 09:45 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Imagine what weapons that and other species may use...
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: krypto2000]
#10052366 - 03/27/09 10:18 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yah, it was a recent discovery, I don't think anyone else did before either. I wanna say it happened within this past year, but my sense of time is so off I can't be sure.
Were they fly fishing? Maybe that "stick" was an Orvis bamboo fly rod. One rich ass fucking gorilla.
-------------------- "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
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10052645 - 03/27/09 11:05 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why is that cool?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10052671 - 03/27/09 11:07 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why wouldn't it be?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10052755 - 03/27/09 11:18 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: I personally never for one second ignored the fact that I am basically an advanced .
It feels that most people around me do, though.
People say that they know evolution is ... and can be proven, or they say they know creationism is ... and is true because they are told that.
Which is better: These people trusting what others say? Or those people over there trusting what others say?
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10052801 - 03/27/09 11:24 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: Why wouldn't it be?
Because it's self-evident.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10052906 - 03/27/09 11:38 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
Poid said: I personally never for one second ignored the fact that I am basically an advanced .
It feels that most people around me do, though.
People say that they know evolution is ... and can be proven, or they say they know creationism is ... and is true because they are told that.
Which is better: These people trusting what others say? Or those people over there trusting what others say?
Neither of those people are 'good' because they don't trust their own logic, and they're just sheeple. IMO, it's better to be wrong by yourself then to be right with everyone else, or vice-versa.
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
Poid said: Why wouldn't it be?
Because it's self-evident.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10053349 - 03/27/09 12:40 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Interestingly, even Karl Popper conceded that Darwinian evolution was not a testable scientific theory, but rather "metaphysical research program." He did go on to say how useful evolutionary theory was, but of course it did not meet his own criteria for what is scientific, namely falsifiability.
A little footnote: Not all philosophers of science agree with Popper about falsifiability as being the criteria for science. Thomas Kuhn argued that science works in a series of paradigms, and found little evidence of scientists actually using falsificationist methods.
--------------------
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10053425 - 03/27/09 12:50 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What knowledge structure makes it cool? Is cool simply a sleight of scientific proof? A factoid?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10053449 - 03/27/09 12:53 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Oh, you're going all the way over there...
Frankly, I despise the term cool. I just think it is a notable feat that a monkey (gorilla?) can use a separate apparatus to hunt for food, much like us humans do.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10053511 - 03/27/09 01:02 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: Oh, you're going all the way over there...
Frankly, I despise the term cool. I just think it is a notable feat that a monkey (gorilla?) can use a separate apparatus to hunt for food, much like us humans do.
I was following the radius out from the center, taking the circumference.
*
Which animals have we taught to hunt and which have taught us?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10053536 - 03/27/09 01:07 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I certainly personally haven't taught any animal to hunt, but there are certain types of canines that assist hunters in catching game.
I also certainly haven't been personally trained by an animal to hunt, but I would think that nature in general gives us a few hints.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10053564 - 03/27/09 01:11 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I watch birds for tips on scavenging.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10053598 - 03/27/09 01:15 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Shit, you're right!
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10054667 - 03/27/09 03:54 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
Poid said: I personally never for one second ignored the fact that I am basically an advanced .
It feels that most people around me do, though.
People say that they know evolution is ... and can be proven, or they say they know creationism is ... and is true because they are told that.
Which is better: These people trusting what others say? Or those people over there trusting what others say?
Exactly. The debate in america is mostly stupid and mostly a faith based discussion.
I never got why people think you have to be stupid to not accept evolution- the inverse is true for the marjoiryt of people. How would most people have any idea what to believe and why should they? I can't think of any reason why they should.
And the title of this post is dumb. All I saw was an assurance of one man that it isn't a scientific theory but he doesn't say why. More faith.
I also have no idea why he says you have to reject religion to accept evolution or why he thinks that's the common belief amongst evolution proponents. Seems stupid to me- more faith.
Why should I believe this guy? I see no reason to at all.
Evolution is clearly a scientific theory.
|
Redrawing
Psychonaut
Registered: 04/03/08
Posts: 526
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10055091 - 03/27/09 04:49 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Evolutionary theory has become dogma for the intellectual elite. There are cases of professors losing jobs, tenure, and becoming blacklisted for entertaining the notion of intelligent design.
The evolutionary dogmatist will immediately shout "creationist!" the second you have the gall to question evolutionary theory. They slander anyone with this, even if he is not in any way suggesting the presence of an omniscient, omnipotent deity. Scientists love appealing to the either/or fallacy -- either you're a justified scientific intellectual or a religious nut. Intelligent design is not an appeal to religion (the argument scientists have used to keep 'ID' out of school curriculum in the United States), it is an umbrella term for any number of potential or existing theories that attempt to account for the intuition that the universe MAY NOT have come about through pure, blind, random, accidental luck.
So instead of trying to account for the gaps in fossil record, or explain why the evolutionary model doesn't always fit ontological observations about biological systems, evolutionary theorists build straw men all day and knock 'em down, without ever feeling the need to assert any evidence for their own position.
David Berlinski wrote an article called "The Deniable Darwin" which covers some pretty damn good arguments rejecting evolutionary theory as it is currently understood and accepted by academic institutions. http://www.arn.org/docs/berlinski/db_deniabledarwin0696.htm
Check it out, maybe you won't be so complacent with evolution after you read it.
-------------------- I'm an insect who dreamt he was a man and loved it, but now that dream is over and the insect is awake
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Redrawing]
#10055729 - 03/27/09 06:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think the biggest problem in this debate is the fact that the bible says that god created the world in a week and that was about 6000 years ago. Evolution says something very different. IT is possible to believe in both evolution and spiritual sense of a higher being, a creator. But evolution + religion? well there dont really seem to be many western religions that are compatible with evolution atm.
I dont see why no one has started an international church for people who believe in God but cannot come to grips with scriptures. The church could involve discussion as to what God really is and what he means to people. Maybe some ppl have tried and its not picked up? I dunno.. seems like the right thing to do.. A lot of people feel like there is a higher power at work but have trouble dealing with this because they think that they have to 'chose' a religion.
Doesnt the whole notion of following a religion seem disgusting? You KNOW that most people on earth have a different religion and that they believe it for the same reasons that you do (you were taught it by someone) and that their religion has the same evidence as yours (old stories).. but.. you still convict to your own religion? In today's world this seems really horrible.. and I dont think we should stand for it.
But no one is there, willing to help find GOD in todays world, as opposed to in the ancient world of scriptures. No one is willing to look for god withOUT initial assumptions as to what God is. Some will say - thats because GOD doesnt exist!
But I am not willing to say this, because I want to find a way of understanding the world that any person can assent to, even people with an emotional conviction in God (almost all exhibitions of 'human intelligence' have occured in people who believed in god.. so I think any attempt to seek greater understanding should be something that even the believers can agree with)
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10055787 - 03/27/09 06:31 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Evolution is God. How's that work?
-------------------- "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
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10055802 - 03/27/09 06:33 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
nope
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10055834 - 03/27/09 06:37 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- "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
|
andrewss
precariously aggrandized
Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,725
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 3 months, 2 days
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10055881 - 03/27/09 06:43 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: It's the fragile personality structure that frantically needs to be different IMO. "How could it be that we are here only to die without a special purpose beyond what is evident"
And you just don't want to acknowledge that there is a judger god out there that lords over all of the universe and will send you to hell unless you repent for your sins... heathen
But anyway, I like evolution, its not bad at all. I just think where all this science leads the human that is really curious is still to a dilemma of interpretation of the function of life in the universe. I dunno, I like the ideas of the will to power and life as further chains on the causal links of what is the essence of life. This isn't really over stepping bounds (but omg science will like totally figure EVERYTHING out, duh! ....) just taking it all the way I guess
-------------------- Jesus loves you.
Edited by andrewss (03/27/09 06:47 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Redrawing]
#10056102 - 03/27/09 07:14 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redrawing said: Evolutionary theory has become dogma for the intellectual elite. There are cases of professors losing jobs, tenure, and becoming blacklisted for entertaining the notion of intelligent design.
Can you provide evidence of this happening? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I believe that the situation would have been more complex than how you describe it.
Quote:
The evolutionary dogmatist will immediately shout "creationist!" the second you have the gall to question evolutionary theory. They slander anyone with this, even if he is not in any way suggesting the presence of an omniscient, omnipotent deity.
Source?
Quote:
Scientists love appealing to the either/or fallacy -- either you're a justified scientific intellectual or a religious nut. Intelligent design is not an appeal to religion (the argument scientists have used to keep 'ID' out of school curriculum in the United States), it is an umbrella term for any number of potential or existing theories that attempt to account for the intuition that the universe MAY NOT have come about through pure, blind, random, accidental luck.
Incorrect. Intelligent design is about God, and only about God. There's no point trying to pretend it's some respectable agnostic skepticism - just look at the name. It clearly refers to an 'intelligent designer'. Proponents of it say it doesn't specifically refer to God, but when pressed they provide no other explanation for who the 'designer' is. And we're not trying to keep ID out of the school curriculum. We're trying to keep it out of the science curriculum. You can't go around teaching non-scientific theories in science class.
Quote:
So instead of trying to account for the gaps in fossil record, or explain why the evolutionary model doesn't always fit ontological observations about biological systems, evolutionary theorists build straw men all day and knock 'em down, without ever feeling the need to assert any evidence for their own position.
You couldn't be more wrong. If scientists don't feel the need to assert any evidence for their own position, why are there so many journals on the topic? Each journal comes out weekly or monthly and contains at least 10 articles in each issue. My university library carries 89 journals with evolution in the title. That represents a staggering amount of work being put into the study of evolution. I suggest you think about that before insulting the scientific community with accusations of straw-men arguments.
-------------------- 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
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Silversoul]
#10056144 - 03/27/09 07:18 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Interestingly, even Karl Popper conceded that Darwinian evolution was not a testable scientific theory, but rather "metaphysical research program." He did go on to say how useful evolutionary theory was, but of course it did not meet his own criteria for what is scientific, namely falsifiability.
A little footnote: Not all philosophers of science agree with Popper about falsifiability as being the criteria for science. Thomas Kuhn argued that science works in a series of paradigms, and found little evidence of scientists actually using falsificationist methods.
But evolution is clearly falsifiable. The whole theory would have to be revised if a possum skeleton was found in rock dating from the Triassic period, or if human remains were found inside those of a dinosaur.
-------------------- 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
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10056214 - 03/27/09 07:27 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think he was talking about Darwinian evolution, i.e. natural selection.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Silversoul]
#10056423 - 03/27/09 07:54 PM (14 years, 11 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 (14 years, 11 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, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
#10056588 - 03/27/09 08:14 PM (14 years, 11 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, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10056624 - 03/27/09 08:21 PM (14 years, 11 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 (14 years, 11 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, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
#10056680 - 03/27/09 08:27 PM (14 years, 11 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, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
#10056785 - 03/27/09 08:42 PM (14 years, 11 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, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10056998 - 03/27/09 09:16 PM (14 years, 11 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, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10057544 - 03/27/09 11:29 PM (14 years, 11 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 (14 years, 11 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.
--------------------
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: johnm214]
#10058090 - 03/28/09 01:51 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
Poid said: I personally never for one second ignored the fact that I am basically an advanced .
It feels that most people around me do, though.
People say that they know evolution is ... and can be proven, or they say they know creationism is ... and is true because they are told that.
Which is better: These people trusting what others say? Or those people over there trusting what others say?
Exactly. The debate in america is mostly stupid and mostly a faith based discussion.
I never got why people think you have to be stupid to not accept evolution- the inverse is true for the marjoiryt of people. How would most people have any idea what to believe and why should they? I can't think of any reason why they should.
And the title of this post is dumb. All I saw was an assurance of one man that it isn't a scientific theory but he doesn't say why. More faith.
I also have no idea why he says you have to reject religion to accept evolution or why he thinks that's the common belief amongst evolution proponents. Seems stupid to me- more faith.
Why should I believe this guy? I see no reason to at all.
Evolution is clearly a scientific theory.
His claims about evolution might benefit from distinguishing between the theory and the discourses about it; evolution as a sieve of empiri vs. evolution as a rhetorical device, etc.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10058154 - 03/28/09 02:19 AM (14 years, 11 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 (14 years, 11 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, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10061464 - 03/28/09 06:35 PM (14 years, 11 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 (14 years, 11 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, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10061688 - 03/28/09 07:04 PM (14 years, 11 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, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10061719 - 03/28/09 07:09 PM (14 years, 11 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 (14 years, 11 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, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10061964 - 03/28/09 07:46 PM (14 years, 11 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 (14 years, 11 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, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: awesomebastard]
#10062585 - 03/28/09 09:19 PM (14 years, 11 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
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10063794 - 03/29/09 01:20 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
>the fact that we DO NOT have any evidence of a creature that had a 'semi developed' feature
What? We have plenty of those. In fact many are still living. Have you ever seen an amphibian's eye? They are semi-developed compared to those of higher vertebrates like humans.
Or consider the quills of a porcupine. Porcupines are rodents, and the quills are modified hairs, with extra keratin to make them hard and sharp. This means that the fur of other rodents is semi-developed compared to the porcupine's quills.
-------------------- 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, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10063935 - 03/29/09 01:54 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I see your point but I think that this is taking a different notion of the word 'semi developed'.
What is needed is evidence of a specimin 'between' two other specimins. Assumedly, the mutations occur without higher order planning and thus any change between one specimin and its offspring must be in very small changes, one gene at a time, essentially. So between any two specimins there exist creatures who posses enough of the original code to be able to spread their genes through the population (ie be sexually compatible) but enough new code to give an advantage. This means that at each stage of development, the small mutations must confer advantage, or alternatively one small mutation must confer a very great advantage.
Although we know that, eg with the porcupine the quills that originally gave the porcupine advantage were not as thick or sharp as the ones they have today, but were just sharp enough to keep predators that much more at bay. Or perhaps the benefit was merely that some form of flea had a harder time navigating thicker bristles. whatever the case, there are many ways we can imagine that thicker spinier hair gradually became advantageous to certain rodents.
With things such as blood circulation systems in fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, it is very hard (or even impossible) to imagine how 'mid way' stages between different circulation systems could occur through small genetic changes.
Since we cannot get much evidence about the circulatory systems of ancient animals, we probably wont get much evidence concerning this matter, ie some example in reality that can confirm that a certain phenomenon is possible. That is all that evidence is. It gives us indications of how possible something is by giving an example of what indeed IS possible.
Eg if John was at home or in fact anywhere other than at the scene of the crime, then it would not be possible (within reason) for his blood to be at the scene of the crime. Evidence: Johns blood at scene of the crime Thus we can prove, through only the information that it 'is possible that john was at the scene of the crime' that john indeed was at the scene of the crime, because this 'possibility' correlates below an acceptable amount with any other possibility than john being at the scene of the crime.
i hope that makes sense.
In this case, although no one has turned up evidence showing that it is possible for a human to be found inside the skeleton of a far ancient dinosaur (which evolution's possibilities do not correlate to), there are lots of things that we postulate to have occured, whereby there is no evidence available to show that such things are possible.
ITs a largely evidence - poor area of biology whereby each new piece of evidence raises many more questions than it answers. And not in a cliche 'discovering the universe' way. I mean that each new found species tends to display features which are not present in other species and thus must be accounted for in a unique way by evolutionary theory. The evidence that we find rarely ever 'confirms' more things about evolutionary theory than it 'raises for confirmation'.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10063972 - 03/29/09 02:06 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I really don't know enough about prehistoric animals to be able to provide examples off the top of my head, but consider the crocodile. Prehistoric crocodiles had long legs. Over time they evolved shorter stumpy legs, to better conserve energy and lurk in the muddy shallows. But we can still dig up fossils of ancient crocodiles with long legs.
-------------------- 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, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10063980 - 03/29/09 02:09 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Length of leg is different to a structural difference in organisation. To be honest, there may be evidence that I am not aware of so go ahead and find some half-way species?
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10064013 - 03/29/09 02:23 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That looks like a beastly predator!
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10064027 - 03/29/09 02:29 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
No problems. Here's a list of fossils showing intermediate steps between fish and amphibians. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html
Quote:
1. Most fish have anterior and posterior external nostrils. In tetrapods, the posterior nostril is replaced by the choana, an internal nostril opening into the roof of the mouth. Kenichthys, a 395-million-year-old fossil from China, is exactly intermediate between the two, having nostrils at the margin of the upper jaw (Zhu and Ahlberg 2004).
2. A fossil shows eight bony fingers in the front fin of a lobed fish, offering evidence that fingers developed before land-going tetrapods (Daeschler and Shubin 1998).
3. A Devonian humerus has features showing that it belonged to an aquatic tetrapod that could push itself up with its forelimbs but could not move it limbs back and forth to walk (Shubin et al. 2004).
4. Acanthostega, a Devonian fossil, about 60 cm long, probably lived in rivers (Coates 1996). It had polydactyl limbs with no wrists or ankles (Coates and Clack 1990). It was predominantly, if not exclusively, aquatic: It had fishlike internal gills (Coates and Clack 1991), and its limbs and spine could not support much weight. It also had a stapes and a lateral sensory system like a fish.
5. Ichthyostega, a tetrapod from Devonian streams, was about 1.5 m long and probably amphibious. It had seven digits on its rear legs (its hands are unknown). Its limbs and spine were more robust than those of Acanthostega, and its rib cage was massive. It had fishlike spines on its tail, but these were fewer and smaller than Acanthostega's. Its skull had several primitive fishlike features, but it probably did not have internal gills (Murphy 2002).
6. Tulerpeton, from estuarine deposits roughly the same age as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, had six digits on its front limbs and seven on its rear limbs. Its shoulders were more robust than Acanthostega, suggesting it was somewhat less aquatic, and its skull appears to be closer to later Carboniferous amphibians than to Acanthostega or Ichthyostega.
And the transition from reptiles to mammals:
Quote:
The transition from reptile to mammal has an excellent record. The following fossils are just a sampling. In particular, these fossils document the transition of one type of jaw joint into another. Reptiles have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw. Mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. These species show transitional jaw-ear arrangements (Hunt 1997; White 2002b). The sequence shows transitional stages in other features, too, such as skull, vertebrae, ribs, and toes.
1. Sphenacodon (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, about 270 million years ago (Mya)). Lower jaw is made of multiple bones; the jaw hinge is fully reptilian. No eardrum. 2. Biarmosuchia (late Permian). One of the earliest therapsids. Jaw hinge is more mammalian. Upper jaw is fixed. Hindlimbs are more upright. 3. Procynosuchus (latest Permian). A primitive cynodont, a group of mammal-like therapsids. Most of the lower jaw bones are grouped in a small complex near the jaw hinge. 4. Thrinaxodon (early Triassic). A more advanced cynodont. An eardrum has developed in the lower jaw, allowing it to hear airborne sound. Its quadrate and articular jaw bones could vibrate freely, allowing them to function for sound transmission while still functioning as jaw bones. All four legs are fully upright. 5. Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, about 235 Mya). It has two jaw joints: mammalian and reptilian (White 2002a). 6. Diarthrognathus (early Jurassic, 209 Mya). An advanced cynodont. It still has a double jaw joint, but the reptilian joint functions almost entirely for hearing. 7. Morganucodon (early Jurassic, about 220 Mya). It still has a remnant of the reptilian jaw joint (Kermack et al. 1981). 8. Hadrocodium (early Jurassic). Its middle ear bones have moved from the jaw to the cranium (Luo et al. 2001; White 2002b).
And land-going mammals to whales:
Quote:
The transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is quite robust. See Babinski (2003) or Zimmer (1998) for pictures of some of these.
1. Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993). 2. Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994). 3. Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993). 4. Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion. 5. Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990). 6. an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).
The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).
I really should have visited talkorigins.org earlier
-------------------- 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
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10064045 - 03/29/09 02:37 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You are using facts. Now do it 'philosophically'...
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Redrawing]
#10064519 - 03/29/09 06:45 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redrawing said: ... Intelligent design is not an appeal to religion (the argument scientists have used to keep 'ID' out of school curriculum in the United States), it is an umbrella term for any number of potential or existing theories that attempt to account for the intuition that the universe MAY NOT have come about through pure, blind, random, accidental luck.
So instead of trying to account for the gaps in fossil record, or explain why the evolutionary model doesn't always fit ontological observations about biological systems, evolutionary theorists build straw men all day and knock 'em down, without ever feeling the need to assert any evidence for their own position.
I don't know what the argument "appeal to religion" means, but are you claiming its not a supernatural argument? There is no way it isn't.
Intelligent design may be taught in school, who cares. The problem is lieing to children and calling it a scientific theory or an acceptable scientific hypothesis, it is neither. It is pure philosophy or guessing, and has no place in science. I am of the opinion we shouldn't lie to children in school, especially on something like this.
Your argument seems to nicely demonstrate the huge misconceptions in teh public debate, especially amongst the proponents of ID. They think they are arguing for or against god creating life, which they aren't as zouden clarified and is obvious from even a currsory understanding of evolutionary theory, for or against god, or for or against god creating the universe. Your comments on whether god created the universe have nothing at all to do with evolution or intelligent design. I'm really sick of people on both sides of the issue (usually the public) thinking the debate has anything to do with teaching god exists. Yuck, that isn't science and these issues are irrelevant to that issue.
What is silly is the public that apparently doesn't understand even the most basic concepts of science and thinks intelligent design is a scientific theory if it could be correct, could explain observations, or is believed by many people, when neither of these are relevant. The ignorance is unacceptable when coupled with a desire to lie to children for political and philosophical reasons.
School is for teaching. First we must not lie.
Really though, the ignorance is huge on both sides of the public debate... Doesn't speak well for the public's understanding of science... at all.
|
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]
#10066150 - 03/29/09 12:50 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
There are many problems with fossil interpretation but to remain true to the topic of the thread, let me focus on one of science's biggest problems: objectivity.
Lack of objectivity and confirmation bias ruin otherwise good science. Here's an old example I like to use.
Koko, the "talking" Gorilla.Skeptical Inquirer articleTime magazine dubbed Koko's internet chat session a "Dada exercise" noting that Penny Patterson as interpreter used "some pretty impressive logic to expand her simian friend's limited communication skills." A partial transcript from the session is revealing: Question: Koko are you going to have a baby in the future? Koko signs: Pink Patterson explains: We had earlier discussion about colors today. Question: Do you like to chat with people? Koko signs: Fine nipple. Patterson explains: Nipple rhymes with people, she doesn't sign people per se, she was trying to do a "sounds like..." Question: Does she have hair? Or is it like fur? Koko signs: Fine. Patterson explains: She has fine hair. Question: Koko, do you feel love from the humans who have raised you? Koko signs: Lips, apple give me. Patterson explains: People give her her favorite foods. -------------------------------- --------
Oh yes, Lips apple give me. Koko's quite the conversationalist. Patterson, as a scientist, is talking out her ass.
Rhetorical Question: 100,000 years from now paleontologists "discover" two skeletons, a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard in the same strata. What conclusions would they reach?
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10067713 - 03/29/09 04:09 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
>Oh yes, Lips apple give me. Koko's quite the conversationalist. Patterson, as a scientist, is talking out her ass.
This is, perhaps, the worst argument you've ever come up with. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response, sorry.
>100,000 years from now paleontologists "discover" two skeletons, a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard in the same strata. What conclusions would they reach?
That they were different breeds of dogs. Next question?
-------------------- 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]
#10067754 - 03/29/09 04:16 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
And you're certain of that? I hesitate to bring up the marsupial dog in Australia.
Patterson's failure to objectivity is a great example of confirmation bias. No comment is necessary.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10067823 - 03/29/09 04:22 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Right, and they teach about confirmation bias to first year science students. Are you really trying to use the fact that mistakes are made as some sort of argument against evolution being a scientific theory? I just can't fathom how you think that logic is sound.
-------------------- 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
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10067885 - 03/29/09 04:29 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
When that is all the ammunition one has...
--------------------
|
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]
#10067888 - 03/29/09 04:30 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Penny Patterson learned about confirmation in her first year of science education? What went wrong?
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: When that is all the ammunition one has...
And you know this how?
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10067923 - 03/29/09 04:35 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: Penny Patterson learned about confirmation in her first year of science education? What went wrong?
I dunno, why don't you ask her?
-------------------- 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
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10067940 - 03/29/09 04:37 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Because real arguments have been made and in return all I see is hand-waving. What are you waiting for? Bring out the big guns.
--------------------
|
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]
#10067975 - 03/29/09 04:41 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But the point is made. Objectivity isn't always apparent. Kuhn, the philosopher Ruse attacks, makes much of this in his book. That's one reason I am excited to read it.
Quote:
Paradigm shift (sometimes known as extraordinary science or revolutionary science) is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science.
It has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share.” (The Essential Tension, 1997). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, “a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself.” (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light. In contrast, a critic in Humanities can choose to adopt a 19th century theory of poetics, for instance, or interpret economic behaviour from a Marxist perspective.
It is possible for an entire field of science to have confirmation bias, even though they have been trained against it. Penny is just an easy target.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Because real arguments have been made and in return all I see is hand-waving. What are you waiting for? Bring out the big guns.
If you actually read my posts you'll understand why I am silent on certain matters. I'm not in the thread to discuss sidebars. Thankfully, the argument doesn't stand or fall on your ability to understand it.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10068012 - 03/29/09 04:45 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
That's one reason I am excited to read it.
Because it confirms your bias against evolution?
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10068058 - 03/29/09 04:50 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light.
Sure they can. But why would you posit something that's been proven wrong?
-------------------- 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
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
That's one reason I am excited to read it.
Because it confirms your bias against evolution?
No, because, as I said earlier, it is an atheist and an evolutionist speaking out against evolution as a science. I think evolution and natural selection are scientifically verifiable to a degree. I'm just not sure how much explanatory power they have. It's quite possible that Ruse is, again, full of hot air. However I won't know that until I've read the book.
--------------------
Edited by Mr. Mushrooms (03/29/09 05:00 PM)
|
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]
#10068146 - 03/29/09 04:59 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light.
Sure they can. But why would you posit something that's been proven wrong?
That quote comes from a Wiki article. I was posting a reference. Evidently, you disagree with Kuhn.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10071020 - 03/29/09 11:21 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I often see opponents of "science" post pop sci explanation or news as evidence of the failings.
Newsflash: Time magazine is not science
And yes psychology is a mess of garbage as far as the conclusions, in many cases, so what?
You are arguing that cuz people make mistakes that science must be poor.
Confirmation bias is easy to identify, usually, in a given experiment , and your example wasn't even a serious scientific paper so far as i can see.
It is quite obvious that the procedure of asking a gorilla something and then subjectivly explaining the response is a poor methodology, so what?
It just seems like instead of low hanging fruit, your digging up carrots fromt eh ground. While an easy target, its not a fruit at all, and neither is time magazine science.
|
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: johnm214]
#10071561 - 03/30/09 12:42 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If confirmation bias was easy to detect, neither Kuhn's, Popper's or Ruse's books would have been necessary.
I was a scientist a long time before I became a philosopher. I love science; I just realize its limitations.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10071605 - 03/30/09 12:52 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, science is limited to what we observe. Only philosophers make shit up
In all seriousness, because someone interviewed in a magazine gave her own thoughts on the meaning of a gorilla's movements your criticizing science. Seriously? You think scientists do experiments to determine who the best wife is?
Not everything a scientist does need be science, and unless that person was claiming that she was doing science in that interview, then it seems irrelevant.
And honestly I don't see science and proper philosophy as being very different. While philosophical theories aren't generally testable as easy, that's why they are usually premised upon assumptions. I don't think there's an inherent conflict.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: johnm214]
#10071618 - 03/30/09 12:55 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Yes, science is limited to what we observe.
Can you observe the subjective realm of another person's consciousness?
You can only observe the behavior of other people.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Zanthius]
#10071654 - 03/30/09 01:07 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Right, which is why I said psychology often perpetuates mischief in the "conclusions" section. These are the things that get parroted uncritically by the media or public.
But this is not a limitation of science, its a limitation of the universe. If you don't have knowledge you can't make informed decisions. Not too profound.
|
iamconfused
Happily insane since '06
Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 589
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10071659 - 03/30/09 01:09 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
On a related note, I never understood why it can't be more accepted that both ID and evolution could be possible. Why could we have not simply been created to evolve?
That's what Mr. Ruse is saying. "Both of these groups think that to accept one belief, they must reject the other," Ruse said. Basically, there is no scientific basis for intelligent design and evolution being competitive. There are no scientific findings, at least in their purest state (think fossil records and the like), that require scientists to make a statement for or against intelligent design in intepreting them. Simply, a fossil is X amount of years old and can resemble the fossils of other species in Y ways. That's all there is to say about it scientifically. He blames Thomas Huxley and others for using these findings to form a philosophical argument against religion, which has now become part of the popular evolutionary dogma.
|
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: iamconfused]
#10071725 - 03/30/09 01:22 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You sound like you've read his work. Have you? What were the good points and bad points?
--------------------
|
iamconfused
Happily insane since '06
Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 589
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10071771 - 03/30/09 01:33 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
No, I didn't read any of his works. I just very carefully read the linked article, because whoever wrote it did a very poor job. [ha, I like the word "very", huh?] They didn't get Ruse's points across very clearly. I'm going to school to be a journalist so I look at these things with a keen eye. You wouldn't believe how bad most journalists are, but that's a topic for another day.
Edited by iamconfused (03/30/09 01:35 AM)
|
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: iamconfused]
#10071783 - 03/30/09 01:37 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10071910 - 03/30/09 02:23 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light.
Sure they can. But why would you posit something that's been proven wrong?
That quote comes from a Wiki article. I was posting a reference. Evidently, you disagree with Kuhn.
If that quote is indicative of his reasoning then yes, I disagree with him. His argument is rubbish. I'm sure that's not his best work.
-------------------- 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]
#10071938 - 03/30/09 02:34 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Sadly zouden, that is supposed to be his best work. This book I'm getting by Ruse (again I'll mention he's an atheist and an evolutionist) takes Kuhn to task. I always liked Kuhn but I never bought his work as 100% accurate. I really think Ruse's book will be very interesting.
If you didn't know, Michael (Ruse) and Dawkins really got into an Internet squabble and lately Ruse has been publishing with Dembski. You can imagine how that got under Dawkins' skin.
I can't wait for it to get here.
--------------------
|
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: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10120916 - 04/07/09 01:00 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The book came; I've been reading it. So far it seems ok but I won't know anything until later.
Just sharing a quote out of context for now:
Quote:
Next comes Charles Darwin, father of evolutionary theory and a real neurotic if ever there was one. Not that we should be surprised since, coming as he did from the comfortable rich upper-middle classes, in proposing a theory of common origins Darwin was threatening the very foundations and stability of the social hierarchy which supported and nourished him. Little wonder that reaction to On the Origin of Species was purely political and that those who really reveled in its message were the rank atheists. Fortunately, whatever his failings as a man of science--and they were legion--in other respects Darwin was a man of resource, and so by the time that he published his work on our own species (The Descent of Man) the beast had been tamed.
Don't feel bad, atheistic materialists, before he castigates Darwin he had his way with Newton. The point being that scientists are just men and men make mistakes. His focus was the gravity of the mistakes. And this, coming from an evolutionist. For that is exactly what Michael Ruse is.
I get the feeling this book is going to be quite the ride.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10120930 - 04/07/09 01:03 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
>Little wonder that reaction to On the Origin of Species was purely political
I find that pretty hard to believe. It caused quite a stir in the scientific community.
-------------------- 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]
#10121119 - 04/07/09 01:46 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well, that's the party line we were taught, however Desmond and Moore's Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist gives us a different focus. A review from Library Journal is revealing:
Quote:
In 44 chapters with copious notes and massive details, Darwin scholars Desmond and Moore give a rich portrait of the gentleman naturalist and scientific theorist from a sociocultural framework emphasizing Whig-Tory conflicts and Lyellian-Malthusian speculations.
The authors reveal that Darwin was particularly influenced by the evolutionary ideas of zoologist Robert Grant; the implications of fossil Argentine megatheriums, speciated Galapagos mockingbirds, and the incredible varieties of barnacles; as well as experimentation with cultivated plants and animals. Despite a doting wife, loyal friends, and belated honors (though he was never knighted), Darwin's life was filled with illness, disappointment, and tragedy (especially the death of daughter Annie at age ten). This impressive volume makes clear that Darwin suffered from a lifelong schizoid struggle between his own materialist science and a late-Victorian theology. For a deeper examination of Darwin's sickness, read John Bowlby's Charles Darwin ( LJ 3/1/91) and Ralph Colp's To Be an Invalid ( LJ 6/1/77). Darwin's final written thoughts on religion are found in Nora Barlow's indispensable The Autobiography of Charles Darwin (1959). Essential reading for evolutionists, Desmond and Moore's monumental work is highly recommended for all academic libraries. BOMC, History Book Club, and Quality Paperback Book Club alternate selections.
It might be interesting to pick up a copy.
--------------------
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10121127 - 04/07/09 01:47 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
in a different thread i was just seriously asked why monkeys sill exist if we came from them.....
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10121287 - 04/07/09 03:44 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But that's a modern analysis, not a contemporary account.
-------------------- 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]
#10121329 - 04/07/09 04:17 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well, obviously, his idea came from somewhere, and he is a degreed Phd as well as being better versed in this field than you or I. Of course, it's a modern analysis, as is the idea that Darwin's opposition came only from scientists.
And how do you know the book doesn't contain contemporary accounts?
--------------------
|
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]
#10121337 - 04/07/09 04:25 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Review from Publishers Weekly:
Quote:
Above all, British authors Desmond ( The Hot-Blooded Dinosaurs ) and Moore, the editorial consultant to Cambridge University's Darwin Letters Project, plunge readers into the controversies of the era as parson-hating biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, socialist Alfred Russell Wallace, free-market capitalists and radical atheists bent Darwinism to their own purposes.
Or aren't authors allowed to frame the politico-societal framework of the time?
--------------------
|
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]
#10121348 - 04/07/09 04:29 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
From another review:
Quote:
The authors avoid any kind of retrospective analysis at all and their account of Darwin's life and work is strictly chronological.
Need more?
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10121355 - 04/07/09 04:34 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Nope, you've proved your 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
|
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]
#10122856 - 04/07/09 11:57 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
There's an interesting argument here that you and I can look at together. As I read this book, I understand my understanding of science, its pitfalls and its tremendous accomplishments, which, regardless of my comments earlier about being only fit to produce toaster ovens, are fairly obvious. I am using a computer, aren't I? And while I don't trust Ruse very much (I've heard him speak), I place a slight amount of faith in him to give an objective (there's that word again) view, than, say, a Creationist. Ruse is an evolutionist and a philosopher--in a sense, as I see it, the best of both possible worlds. Each of us will have to decide whether he maintains his objectivity.
So far, I'm having a blast reading it.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10128201 - 04/08/09 05:22 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Getting back on topic: having read some of the book, can you explain again why evolution is not a scientific theory? So far I haven't seen any reasons why it's not.
-------------------- 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
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10128370 - 04/08/09 07:09 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
i dont really understand the subject anyways... op must mean its not a proven fact cuz anything can be theory
|
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]
#10128572 - 04/08/09 08:33 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: Getting back on topic: having read some of the book, can you explain again why evolution is not a scientific theory? So far I haven't seen any reasons why it's not.
The title was just a bait and switch, zouden, and so was the article I think. Whoever the author was, she was a little prejudiced I think.
I'm going to lay the foundation for the book soon, e.g. its premises etc. That way more people will get more out of it.
What have you read and what was your opinion? I'm finding I like Popper more than Kuhn though I still respect each of them in different ways. Perhaps that's because I'm an objectivist realist.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10130931 - 04/08/09 03:30 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
No I haven't read it, I just asked for your thoughts now that you have read some. My sentence was perhaps somewhat ambiguous.
-------------------- 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]
#10136693 - 04/09/09 02:07 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
So far it seems Ruse defends evolution. That shouldn't come as a shock as that is his belief. But basically, the more important issue is how we view science.
Two principle philosophers come into play: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.
From the book:
Quote:
In order to understand Popper's philosophy--and from now on I shall present the mature position, ignoring developments, debts and other sidelights--it is best to go straight to its heart and to the fact that Popper was determinably and absolutely a realist. This is one of those terms which can mean anything to anybody, as can its opposite, idealist, so let me say that for Popper at a very minimum realism mean that the world exists and that it exists in some way independent of us. Trees really do fall in the forests when no one is around to hear them. They would do so even if no humans had ever existed past, present, or future. The aim of science is to map reality; Popper speaks often of science as a "net" which tries to capture reality in its folds.
Quote:
The key concept in Kuhn's sparkling volume is that of a paradigm. As friend and foe and pointed out many times, Kuhn means different things by this term at different times in the book. But the chief sense is that of a work or body of work which captures scientific imagination--which commands allegiance from a group of workers and provides tasks for them to undertake (Kuhn 1962, 10):
Aristotle's Physica, Ptolemy's Almagest, Newton's Principia and Optiks, Franklin's Electricity, Lavoisier's Chemistry, and Lyell's Geology--these and many other works served for a time implicitly to define the legitimated problems and methods of a research field for succeeding generations. They were able to do so because they shared two essential characteristics. Their achievement was sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity. Simultaneously, it was sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve. Achievements that share these two characteristics I shall henceforth refer to as "paradigms," a term that relates closely to "normal science." By choosing it, I mean to suggest that some accepted examples of actual scientific practice--examples which include law, theory, application, and instrumentation together--provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research.
Science which does not have a paradigm is properly considered immature. It is in a "preparadigmatic state." Once a paradigm has been found, then people can set to work--for Kuhn, science is as deeply a dynamic process as it is for Popper. The paradigm sets the rules, it gives challenges, it marks out limits, and much more: it gives rise to "normal science." This is the science that most scientists do all of their lives all of the time. It is science where--and this is absolutely crucial for Kuhn--the paradigm is taken as a given, not to be challenged. It is, in a sense, derivative or clean-up work. "No part of the aim of science to invent new theories, and they are often intolerant of those invented by others" (24). When you are working within the paradigm, there is nothing outside the picture.
Now, I don't know about you, but I have found both quotes to be fairly accurate. This is what I meant by agreeing with both Popper and Kuhn.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10136815 - 04/09/09 02:26 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
IMO if humans weren't also considered part of the evolutionary process most every one would have accepted it long ago and been done with it.
-------------------- "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
|
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: Icelander]
#10136845 - 04/09/09 02:33 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Of course that's the case. We don't care nearly as much about the origins of the Pygmy Goat as we do ourselves. This is because, at the root of it, studies in origins bear striking similarity to religion. That's because they are religion.
Consider this statement from a well known evolutionist:
Quote:
The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be.
Is that a scientific statement of fact, or mere philosophical conjecture?
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10136869 - 04/09/09 02:37 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah I agree it's religious bullshit. Which is what makes being scientific such a hard road to travel. Personal desire and bias are all along the road. You have to know yourself quite well and be comfortable with that to be a good scientist IMO.
and it will never be perfect.
-------------------- "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
|
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: Icelander]
#10136902 - 04/09/09 02:42 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You sound exactly like the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, to me. Popper, who I admire immensely, drives a harder line.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10136925 - 04/09/09 02:48 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Does this mean you don't admire me?
I am not well read in this field and have no idea who those lads are.
-------------------- "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
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10137299 - 04/09/09 03:51 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
We don't care nearly as much about the origins of the Pygmy Goat
Do not slight the pygmy goat!
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Don't misunderstand. I admire you more than most for your shockingly, tactless candor. I find it refreshing.
And don't feel bad about not knowing who those guys are. Most people, including those that rely on science to bolster their epistemic, philosophic views have no idea either. I've spent over a quarter of a century tackling these problems and still feel as if I am only on the first rung of the ladder.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10140081 - 04/10/09 12:11 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be.
Is that a scientific statement of fact, or mere philosophical conjecture?
You do this quite a bit.
Your whole objection to some portions of what is commonly called science is that people make conclusions that are not fully supportable by the existing data. Ok, but this isn't supposed to be infallibale as science is sometimes taken to be. It is purposely a hypothesis rather than a statement of scientific dogma.
And the statement you question, what of it? You can of course not ay something is fact, like that. Of course we don't have knowledge of what the future is going to be, we can only base it on the past, and so obviously we can make presumptions that are wrong.
Quote:
We don't care nearly as much about the origins of the Pygmy Goat as we do ourselves. This is because, at the root of it, studies in origins bear striking similarity to religion. That's because they are religion.
What is religion in this context?
I don't understand how you are using this word to say that studies toward the origin of a species or life is religion.
How is mixing shit in a vat and seeing what comes about religion? How is digging up a fossil religion?
Again, your observations all seem premised upon some shock that when people take scientific data and make hypothesises that these hypothesises can be wrong. No kidding. This is supposed to be the case, and has nothing to do with the validity of of conclusions drawn with relativly certain presumptions or relativly direct measurements.
|
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: johnm214]
#10140658 - 04/10/09 03:07 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be.
Is that a scientific statement of fact, or mere philosophical conjecture?
You do this quite a bit.
Do what?
Quote:
Your whole objection to some portions of what is commonly called science is that people make conclusions that are not fully supportable by the existing data. Ok, but this isn't supposed to be infallibale as science is sometimes taken to be. It is purposely a hypothesis rather than a statement of scientific dogma.
Hypotheses are one thing, laws are another and theories still another. I have many objections but I don't understand your point.
Quote:
And the statement you question, what of it? You can of course not ay something is fact, like that. Of course we don't have knowledge of what the future is going to be, we can only base it on the past, and so obviously we can make presumptions that are wrong.
My statement? Which one?
Quote:
Quote:
We don't care nearly as much about the origins of the Pygmy Goat as we do ourselves. This is because, at the root of it, studies in origins bear striking similarity to religion. That's because they are religion.
What is religion in this context?
I don't understand how you are using this word to say that studies toward the origin of a species or life is religion.
How is mixing shit in a vat and seeing what comes about religion? How is digging up a fossil religion?
From the Greeks and before many religions have an origin myth. Evolution, in that sense, is no different. Please notice I said a striking similarity.
Quote:
Again, your observations all seem premised upon some shock that when people take scientific data and make hypothesises that these hypothesises can be wrong. No kidding. This is supposed to be the case, and has nothing to do with the validity of of conclusions drawn with relativly certain presumptions or relativly direct measurements.
A worse mischaracterization of my thought could scarcely be found.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10140676 - 04/10/09 03:15 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
>From the Greeks and before many religions have an origin myth. Evolution, in that sense, is no different. Please notice I said a striking similarity.
How on earth is the theory of evolution 'no different' from an origin myth?
-------------------- 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]
#10140707 - 04/10/09 03:27 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Evolution, in that sense, is no different.
Both are similar in that both attempt to explain our origins, as does the Bible, as does Native American legends, as does the Koran, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
Did I really need to explain that?
--------------------
|
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]
#10140718 - 04/10/09 03:31 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: >From the Greeks and before many religions have an origin myth. Evolution, in that sense, is no different. Please notice I said a striking similarity.
How on earth is the theory of evolution 'no different' from an origin myth?
Look at it this way--which I think was Ice's point--if evolution bore no resemblance in that sense there would be no argument. As it stands two ideas about our origins collide because they have that in common.
In many respects, they are light years apart with many differences. Yet, in that instance, they are exactly alike. Evolution is man's attempt to tell us how we got here. Why is that so shocking?
--------------------
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10140723 - 04/10/09 03:33 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: >From the Greeks and before many religions have an origin myth. Evolution, in that sense, is no different. Please notice I said a striking similarity.
How on earth is the theory of evolution 'no different' from an origin myth?
an origin myth does not have material proof backing it up.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10141257 - 04/10/09 09:00 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
zouden said: >From the Greeks and before many religions have an origin myth. Evolution, in that sense, is no different. Please notice I said a striking similarity.
How on earth is the theory of evolution 'no different' from an origin myth?
Look at it this way--which I think was Ice's point--if evolution bore no resemblance in that sense there would be no argument. As it stands two ideas about our origins collide because they have that in common.
In many respects, they are light years apart with many differences. Yet, in that instance, they are exactly alike. Evolution is man's attempt to tell us how we got here. Why is that so shocking?
So you mean that evolution is similar to origin myths in a way that is irrelevant to the theory itself? That's a completely useless point and I don't know why you brought it up. It's like saying that sexual intercourse is an origin myth because it also tries to explain how we got here.
-------------------- 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]
#10141546 - 04/10/09 10:14 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It's like saying that sexual intercourse is an origin myth because it also tries to explain how we got here.
good one
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10141565 - 04/10/09 10:22 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
On second look, I can't really see anywhere in this thread where its premise is supported with actual cogent arguments. Of course, I think we need to get clear on what we mean by "evolution." If we're talking about common descent, I would say there's overwhelming evidence for that. I do think that some NeoDarwinists like Dawkins tend to presuppose ideas like biological determinism, but the premise that species evolve from one another seems to be very well supported.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10142313 - 04/10/09 12:59 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: On second look, I can't really see anywhere in this thread where its premise is supported with actual cogent arguments
Yep, said so in my first post and nobody's come up with anything yet.
It isn't scientific theory because..... I say so.
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
It's like saying that sexual intercourse is an origin myth because it also tries to explain how we got here.
good one
Right, which is why I asked what he meant by religion when calling it a religious myth. It seemed like he was ignoring the common definition of the word, and making a statement that is hard to understand.
Science is based on observation, religion is based on faith and dogma. Not hard to tell the two apart.Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be.
Is that a scientific statement of fact, or mere philosophical conjecture?
You do this quite a bit.
Do what?
Quote:
Your whole objection to some portions of what is commonly called science is that people make conclusions that are not fully supportable by the existing data. Ok, but this isn't supposed to be infallibale as science is sometimes taken to be. It is purposely a hypothesis rather than a statement of scientific dogma.
Hypotheses are one thing, laws are another and theories still another. I have many objections but I don't understand your point.
Quote:
And the statement you question, what of it? You can of course not ay something is fact, like that. Of course we don't have knowledge of what the future is going to be, we can only base it on the past, and so obviously we can make presumptions that are wrong.
My statement? Which one?
Quote:
Quote:
We don't care nearly as much about the origins of the Pygmy Goat as we do ourselves. This is because, at the root of it, studies in origins bear striking similarity to religion. That's because they are religion.
What is religion in this context?
I don't understand how you are using this word to say that studies toward the origin of a species or life is religion.
How is mixing shit in a vat and seeing what comes about religion? How is digging up a fossil religion?
From the Greeks and before many religions have an origin myth. Evolution, in that sense, is no different. Please notice I said a striking similarity.
Quote:
Again, your observations all seem premised upon some shock that when people take scientific data and make hypothesises that these hypothesises can be wrong. No kidding. This is supposed to be the case, and has nothing to do with the validity of of conclusions drawn with relativly certain presumptions or relativly direct measurements.
A worse mischaracterization of my thought could scarcely be found.
1. You do what i said: criticize science as foolish on the basis of some objection to some thought that was a hypothesis rather than an observation or conclusion premised upon rational presumptions. You say "oh they said science told me serum cholesterol is caused and well correlated to dietary cholesterol but they were wrong, science sucks" when in reality the premise is incorrect- science didn't say that, it was just a hypothesis for which no direct evidence existed. When the observations supported changing the hypothesis it was done, but its not like anyone was arguing that it is scientifically inconceivable that cholesterol resulted from other processes than dietary consumption.
Likewise you take what someone said in time magazine and purport that to be representative of some scientific dogma, and yet you never establish the premise as true before criticzing it. Just cuz a scientist or a paper says soemthing doesn't mean its some 'scientifically proven truth'. Much of the process is just guessing and supporting or refuting the guess on the basis of further evidence.
2 Quote:
A worse mischaracterization of my thought could scarcely be found
I'm not saying its what you are thinking, I'm saying it what you are doing, as evidenced by your arguments. If you care to refute it go ahead.
Quote:
From the Greeks and before many religions have an origin myth. Evolution, in that sense, is no different. Please notice I said a striking similarity.
Like zouden said, this seems a dishonest comparison, not useful at all.
In any case, greek origin myths do not yield testable predictions if they rely on supernatural creation at some point in the past. Science is different. You can test the theory of evolution in some ways, and in that sense it is a scientific theory. I suspect these origin myths have no predictions that may be tested and no evidence that directly supports them. If they have these things, then yeah it is, perhaps, though of as a scientific thought, but so what?
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: johnm214]
#10142735 - 04/10/09 02:11 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This thread seems to be the quintessential example of how P&S members distrust and dislike science and scientific conclusions. Here they are comparing science to religion so that the usual religion bashing can be easily redirected to science.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
#10142752 - 04/10/09 02:15 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Not me! I like the scientific method. It's nothing like religion IMO. People mistake the practitioners faults for the thing itself. Not really "mistake", they know well what they are doing, "use" is a better term.
-------------------- "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
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10142821 - 04/10/09 02:29 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Not really "mistake", they know well what they are doing, "use" is a better term.
You are calling certain posters deceptive?
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Yes of course. Actually all us humans deceive ourselves IMO. Just some more than others.
-------------------- "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
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 58 minutes
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10143913 - 04/10/09 05:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
who's doing the deceiving then? is the deceiver deceived too? if so... is it really deceiving?
--------------------
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
#10144151 - 04/10/09 06:08 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said: This thread seems to be the quintessential example of how P&S members distrust and dislike science and scientific conclusions.
For very good reason Qubit
I am not going to look through this whole thread, just thought I would throw some ideas out.
First of all, the reason evolution is an often debated subject, is not merely because the crazy Christians, but concerns humanism in general.
Second, I wonder if anybody has defined science in this thread? Lets say science is the study of causality. There are some interesting consequences to this:
If science is the study of causality itself, we are essentially framing reality within the margins of cause and effect.
Yet evolution does not attribute any cause; it is in unbiased, a series of effects.
If there is no "real" cause, as the creationists would argue, how is it sensible? This is more scientific in a certain sense, in that cause (creation) and effect are explicitly acknowledged. (please do not get your panties in a bundle over this, just understand my semantics)
Evolutionists would rather arbitrarily impose scope (to the extent that they find use value in it), as between one point of development and another. But it is important to point out that the initial idea is not yet "framed" as science. The theory of evolution extends "beyond" any defining cause, or rather, it does not choose to assume of one. You might say that it is infinite in scope, while science is finite (within margins). Simplified way of looking at this difference, is that evolution is a step back from science, in that it is merely considered a series of effects, without addressing cause.
While the assumption of cause is crucial to science, it is not to phenomenology in general. The theory of evolution is what I would consider existential (my own interest stemming from Nietzsche). This is the highest integrity in my opinion, but with that, any evolutionist cannot shirk the responsibility of any imposed scope and perspective in his pragmatic application, nor should he deny the vagueness of his initial theory: Change is ungraspable, unknowable "in itself".
So if you would indulge these definitions:
Science may be considered the (framed) study of both cause and effect, whereupon it obtains its use value. If it is agreed that science is a finite concern of both cause and effect, it is granted that this (the ideal of science) is appropriately considered a perspective, and naturally a perspective that is arbitrarily imposed upon the actual reality of a situation. Thus, "science" as we refer to it in this abstract sense, really is a metaphysic. So it must be tied to the world: Science is the meta-properties (cause and effect) of human use value and pragmatics. In consideration of both physic and metaphysic; "realistically", it is technology.
In coming to consensus, the typical reactionary appeals of those like Richard Dawkins or Creationists, are both schools that I consider evangelical. The particular "Integrity" in my mind, is breached in both; that one should not be assumptive of a creation point (as the Creationists choose to), but neither should one at once imply this point and deny culpability of perspective (as the evangelical evolutionists seem to). Its really the same thing.
Of course this is not to suggest that all creationists or evolutionists are evangelical, although I am not sure why I need to mention this.
Evolution, existentialism, absurdity, are closely related in my mind, particularly because they precede science. A common understanding to each of these philosophies, is that change cannot ever be Truly (unarbitrarily) grasped.
I agree with evolution as a philosophical notion of change, and to any extent that I find this useful or graspable, I consider it a science. Change (or "effect") is existential, Cause and effect is metaphysical (sensible).
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
Edited by daytripper23 (04/11/09 03:51 AM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10145099 - 04/10/09 08:57 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Right, so no one in this thread thinks that evolution is not a scientific theory, apart from the OP, who's been rather hesitant to back up that assertion. It's taken 7 pages of posts to get to this 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
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10145111 - 04/10/09 08:59 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Its not the destination, but the journey.
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10145169 - 04/10/09 09:11 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What is the scientific theory of evolution?
You don't have to go into specifics, but how exactly would you frame it as a subclause of science?
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10145208 - 04/10/09 09:18 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It's in the name - "theory of evolution". Theories are, by definition, scientific.
The OP's assertion is that evolution is not scientific, and not a theory. I fail to see how this is the case.
-------------------- 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
|
Mufungo
Coming at ya
Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 2,743
Loc: Knowhere
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
#10145246 - 04/10/09 09:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
OP might be interested in reading Paul Feyerabend.
...
In the grand scheme of things the theory of evolution isn't necessarily a better explanation of the origin of our species than any other. But in the field of science, in a sense of how the theory of evolution frames biological understandings, it is a better explanation because it can be used in science by scientists and as such is a scientific theory.
IF scientists some how worked the adam and eve story into some sort of useful explanation of how biological organisms change over time, i.e. an explanation of how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, then I can't see any reason why the creation story couldn't be a scientific theory too. But the creation story isn't useful to scientific method/understanding and isn't generally purported as science, so it's not.
--------------------
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10145248 - 04/10/09 09:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Is a theory of God scientific then?
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10145251 - 04/10/09 09:25 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The theory is that observed change in traits as well as observed diversity of life can be explained with mutations in reproduction combined with a selection mechanism over time.
Im not sure about as a 'subclause' but, its scientific because it offers testable hypothesis, observable predictive abilities, and could presumably be falsified. Its elevated to the status of theory because it has been tested, predictions have been confirmed and has yet to be falsified with a consensus within the scientific community.
Seems simple to me.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10145267 - 04/10/09 09:27 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
daytripper23 said: Is a theory of God scientific then?
If it's falsifiable.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Silversoul]
#10145292 - 04/10/09 09:32 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Thats whats needed to be a hypothesis though... merely being falsifiable is not sufficient to be a theory - that also requires evidence, etc. Again and again this communication breakdown rears up in an evolution discussion.
Maybe a debate where the words theory, god and others are banned then people could see real concepts instead of pigeon holed definitions; maybe at least to an extent.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
#10145369 - 04/10/09 09:48 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I know. One thing about evolution that intrigues me is that rather than happening very gradually, scientists are finding that evolution tends to make big leaps over short intervals of about 5 to 10 thousand years(a blink of an eye in geological time). Considering the number of genes and the probability of a genetic mutation being beneficial, it seems that evolution beats the odds, and that these mutations may not be so random after all.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Silversoul]
#10145435 - 04/10/09 09:58 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The impression I get from my readings and pursuing is that the statistics show it is indeed within the odds. Ill have to keep my eyes and ears open for some info on that.
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 58 minutes
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
#10145485 - 04/10/09 10:18 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
these are all geometries to try and explain the flow
but the flow is ceaseless and beyond digitization
we are but moments inside of higher moments
the beginning was just an effect of a higher cause and so forth
forgetting this is liberation
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10145528 - 04/10/09 10:27 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
daytripper23 said: Is a theory of God scientific then?
There's a theory of God? All I've heard is "God exists" which is not a theory at all. It has no testable predictions and is not falsifiable.
-------------------- 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
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10145601 - 04/10/09 10:44 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I hope that you just consider my words in their own context, rather than previous posters.
My concern is how evolution is often considered synonymous with a causal perspective of change.
Science is a causal perspective, meaning it is conducted in terms of both cause and effect. We might observe the change between ancient cat and domestic cat, and you could say we have framed evolution between two points, satisfying both a cause and effect, and so as scientific theory. Perhaps I am not being specific, but this is the jist of it, right?
The difference, is that I would call this a scientific theory of evolution.
My point is that Evolution precedes science to the extent that it actually (non-dogmatically) signifies change. As a matter of fact, we can only actually observe effects. Evolution, might only be assumed to be just that. It is an observable change, yes, but there is no true ground for cause, even though we may recognize determinacy. It is primarily effect alone, not necessarily marginalized within the frames of Scientific understanding.
It is only through scientific (arbitrary) perspective that a cause is appropriated. Causality is the metaphysical, value based assumption that which we might impose (and my point, hopefully take responsibility for) a cause as meaningful to this observance. It is considered meaningful only because we find it somehow useful.
The basic notion of change though, which is well considered the primary characteristic of evolution; precedes perspective based causality.
So any evolutionary theory you could think of, I am sure I would agree that it is scientific; but my essential point is that this is only because you have framed it in a certain way. You created meaning, or attributed use value to it.
Evolution is not a subclause (an expressed component) of science (cause and effect), even though it may be necessary for it.
In conceptualization, it is the other way around. Science is derived from the theory of evolution, generally the notion of change. We cannot assume it is any less than infinite in scope, because we simply do not know so much. However useful this maybe to us, we cannot non-dogmatically or non-arbitrarily attribute a cause upon reality. We impose it, and again, hopefully assume responsibility.
Evolution may be a scientific theory, and in such a case it is a scientific theory of evolution. There is a big difference between this articulation and "evolution is a scientific theory".
With that said, I would probably not disagree to the "scientificity" of any specific instance anyone might mention, if only because I do not have the expertise. That's not my point. I am outlining what I consider to be the proper understanding of physic and metaphysic, as it concerns the theory of evolution. It might seem trivial or overcomplicated, but it is very important.
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
Edited by daytripper23 (04/11/09 03:57 AM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10145652 - 04/10/09 10:56 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Evolution (theory) is not a subclause (expressed component) of science (cause and effect).
In conceptualization, it is the other way around. Science is derived from the theory of evolution. We cannot assume it is any less than infinite in scope, because we simply do not know so much. We cannot non-dogmatically or non-arbitrarily attribute a cause upon reality, however useful this maybe to us. Rather we impose it.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
-------------------- 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
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10145663 - 04/10/09 10:59 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
He gets a little esoteric at times.
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Redstorm]
#10145748 - 04/10/09 11:17 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
In sum, I am saying the that an unbiased notion of change (evolution) precedes any arbitrary imposition of cause, which is something that is necessary for science.
Evolution is existential; how we understand this flux is more specific.
Does evolution actually claim a cause?
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10145833 - 04/10/09 11:39 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The problem is, if evolution is defined as between two points, a dualistic perspective, it must assume a cause. Evolution does not though, we may simply observe effect, the singular, unbiased flux of existence. No evolution does not assume a cause. Reality just is.
I am not saying you should dig that, but just understand its necessary precedence.
Science is not simply knowledge of the world, it is purely pragmatic. By that, and in relation to evolution, we impose the scope of cause (and effect). It is perhaps better put as arbitrary, but as a human concern it is what I call imposition, as an appeal to responsibility. We need to begin taking responsibility for our science. Science for science's sake is a shallow illusion, it always flows back to human values.
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10145892 - 04/10/09 11:55 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
>The problem is, if evolution is defined as between two points, a dualistic perspective, it must assume a cause.
Why?
-------------------- 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
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10145961 - 04/11/09 12:13 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well he presumed earlier that science requires a cause, which is not true.
Science is observation. You throw in some informed guessing in there and that's about it. No cause needed.
The rest of his post got into some metaphysical stuff which seems a side issue.
These discussions always devolve into some "but do you really know that's reality?" which is irrelevant and not the point, but whatever. I think that was some of his previous discussion and why its a bit off track in my opinion.
Science observes stuff and postulates ideas on teh basis which informs further experimentation. Whether we are observing reality or something else isn't really relevant.
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10145981 - 04/11/09 12:20 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Do you agree that rationality is determinant?
That is how we make sense of, and how we define scope. They arise together. If the scope is from primitive organism A to organism B, to make scientific sense of this, we determine that A (and its environment) caused B. Through whatever string of mechanism, that is how we make sense of things. (Thats our science)
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: johnm214]
#10146016 - 04/11/09 12:33 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Well he presumed earlier that science requires a cause, which is not true.
Science is observation. You throw in some informed guessing in there and that's about it. No cause needed.
Define Science from American heritage dictionary (with my own notes and emphasis)
Quote:
1a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. (a merely ostensible definition of reality "in itself")
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science. (no comment)
Observation is observation, science is more than that.
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10146056 - 04/11/09 12:41 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What's your 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
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10146107 - 04/11/09 12:55 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Overall?
That an unbiased notion of change, precedes the causal. Specifically referring to what evolution is; it is a philosophy that precedes science. It is the notion of change, which precedes the contextualized, or concretely scoped perspective of change that is between two points.
I realize that issue tends to rise in terms of some silly theories and much friction is created this way but evolution simply has nothing to do with cause. It is simply a flux.
So it might clearly demonstrate that the world was not created 5000 years ago, but it does not favor any other context or scope.
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10146109 - 04/11/09 12:56 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Basically there's a fundamental problem in these discussions. I see science used in two ways:
1. The process of science whereby you guess things based on your evidence and try to observe whether or not these guesses are true.
2. The results of said process that are supported and tested by many relevant observations and only those well supported presumptions as are neccesary.
The second is basically what I think people should be refering to when they say "science says....." as otherwise it makes little sense- the statement could mean anything. (like if that were to refer to science in the first sense it could include my theory that squid cause the seasons, which is a valid hypothesis but wouldn't be considered to be what 'science says' since it isn't a well tested theory. In that case it would make little sense to criticize science cuz I decided one day to amass evidence that squid cause the season- those kinds of guesses aren't supposed to be accurate)
The problem, however; is that the criticisms of science in these forums and in the public sphere seem to revolve around the guessing part of number 1 and use the inherent wrong guesses to argue that 2. is bullshit, which isn't true.
That's the problem in a nutshell that is repeated in this forum and others ad infinitum.
In any case, dictionaries probably aren't the best source to inform on these matters. I think my two definitions in the above are the source of much of the mischief in these forums, and i think they're pretty accurate. I don't see how science requires cause any more than anything in the universe, i.e. while the processes require cause to manifest the scientific observation doesn't have to look for such or explain it.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: johnm214]
#10146133 - 04/11/09 01:05 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
>That an unbiased notion of change, precedes the causal. Specifically referring to what evolution is; it is a philosophy that precedes science. It is the notion of change
But "evolution" is not the same as "change". Evolution is not a philosophy. It's an explanation for an observation.
-------------------- 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
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: johnm214]
#10146155 - 04/11/09 01:14 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Basically there's a fundamental problem in these discussions. I see science used in two ways:
1. The process of science whereby you guess things based on your evidence and try to observe whether or not these guesses are true.
2. The results of said process that are supported and tested by many relevant observations and only those well supported presumptions as are neccesary.
The second is basically what I think people should be refering to when they say "science says....." as otherwise it makes little sense- the statement could mean anything. (like if that were to refer to science in the first sense it could include my theory that squid cause the seasons, which is a valid hypothesis but wouldn't be considered to be what 'science says' since it isn't a well tested theory. In that case it would make little sense to criticize science cuz I decided one day to amass evidence that squid cause the season- those kinds of guesses aren't supposed to be accurate)
The problem, however; is that the criticisms of science in these forums and in the public sphere seem to revolve around the guessing part of number 1 and use the inherent wrong guesses to argue that 2. is bullshit, which isn't true.
That's the problem in a nutshell that is repeated in this forum and others ad infinitum.
In any case, dictionaries probably aren't the best source to inform on these matters. I think my two definitions in the above are the source of much of the mischief in these forums, and i think they're pretty accurate. I don't see how science requires cause any more than anything in the universe, i.e. while the processes require cause to manifest the scientific observation doesn't have to look for such or explain it.
A scientific explanation outside of the causality? Just provide an example then.
Also, I didn't say that number two is bullshit, I said that it is metaphysical. By that I mean to represent any notion of human reason/rationality, so it is no "worse" in this sense than any other knowledge. Yet there are certainly many describable downfalls, primarily stemming from the fact that it is merely an ideal reflection of reality. Yea, you might appropriately denigrate a metaphysic as bullshit, but another way of putting it is acknowledging the frailty of perspective. Also, just because you don't concern yourself with metaphysics, doesn't mean that it is drivel. If you study philosophy it is very important. It is acknowledging the frailty of perspective in terms of the world.
Finally, concerning dictionaries, I would normally agree. If you will look, I was not initially relying on dictionaries at all, and I think the rhetoric in my first few posts should be self explanatory. But if you simply disagree with me, what am I supposed to do say "no it isn't" to your "yes it is"? I explained what I meant in previous posts, so if you simply disagree, I have to appeal to a higher consensual authority.
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
Edited by daytripper23 (04/11/09 02:17 AM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10146170 - 04/11/09 01:18 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
>and I think the rhetoric in my first few posts should be self explanatory
It isn't.
-------------------- 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
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10146283 - 04/11/09 01:54 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: But "evolution" is not the same as "change".
I never indicated that evolution was the same as change; what is central to my argument is that change is essential to evolution.
Quote:
Evolution is not a philosophy. It's an explanation for an observation.
This is a joke right? Obviously an appeal to authority? Who determines where philosophical discourse extends and does not? While I agree that evolution may be considered as a scientific explanation, I also wouldn't limit it to this.
Explanation is imposing context upon something that simply is occurring. For instance, I might reasonably say that "we are evolving", yet I do not know into what we are evolving. This is closer to what evolution actually is, because it is simply a process. But you would say this is simply wrong? Perhaps we came to this realization through understanding, but this is certainly not evolution itself.
Quote:
>and I think the rhetoric in my first few posts should be self explanatory
It isn't.
Well, maybe you are forgetting the role of readers comprehension. Otherwise, all you have to do is point out the fallacy, or ask for clarification.
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10146305 - 04/11/09 02:02 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I've been asking for clarification, but getting very little. I don't believe you are committing any fallacies. I just think you could do a better job at explaining your thoughts.
I've got an IQ of 130-something and I can honestly say I have no fucking clue what you're talking about
If I don't respond, it's because I'm heading out to a rave. Happy easter everyone!
-------------------- 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
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10146312 - 04/11/09 02:04 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Old post, and I may be taking him out of context, but this seems pretty close to what I am trying to say:
Quote:
redgreenvines said: many people think that this is evolution -- or at least the short end of it
that is pretty supremacist.
evolution is a bit more like this...
all of what is is the results of evolution, not just the handsome and clever most human looking thing. everything that exists on this earth is evolved equally.
but just like guns, they let anyone who can spell use the word any way they like.
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
#10146318 - 04/11/09 02:07 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
One is a diagram of the evolution of man. The other is the evolution of a whole lot of different organisms, including man. So?
Are you surprised that there's so much emphasis put on human 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
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10146459 - 04/11/09 04:03 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: One is a diagram of the evolution of man. The other is the evolution of a whole lot of different organisms, including man. So?
Are you surprised that there's so much emphasis put on human evolution?
The evolution of man didn't occur in a line, but in a tree-like structure with many branches. All evolution occurs in this way.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10147214 - 04/11/09 11:10 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: >and I think the rhetoric in my first few posts should be self explanatory
It isn't.
But what if one believes hard enough?
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Zanthius]
#10147255 - 04/11/09 11:16 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Where does this creature fit on the chart?
--------------------
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 58 minutes
|
|
what's an interesting thought is that... accepting evolution to it's full extent (ala life originated from single cell organisms) implies the same DNA has been alive this entire time, mutating and splitting...
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: deff]
#10147342 - 04/11/09 11:39 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
We are but servants of this serpentine molecule. I think we should revolt.
I thought this archival gem might be relevant:
-excerpt from "AutoBiography of a Swami"-
One of my more powerful drugs experiences took place with my ex-fiance, Ramona, almost 20 years ago. She was a conservative, Hispanic Roman Catholic and drugs were not part of her world and I was her first lover.
I dropped some powerful acid and we started to make love. (She was quite sober. I often wonder how it would have been had we both been tripping.) At first it was amazingly erotic, but without the usual pesky urge to explode-on-contact. (In fact, as others may tell you, a man can last as long as he wants to while tripping without being desensitized like on alcohol.) Then the entire experience changed to an incredibly, amazing journey into the time-stream of life. With each thrust, I could see all the cycles of the universe; stars being born and dying, electrons circling nuclei, the seasons and rhythms of change. Even weirder was that I became/saw my ancestors mating all the way back, regressing to simpler and simpler lifeforms to the primordial soup; even unto the Original Source. (Sorry, I am NOT going to spoil the mystery for you guys!) It was an infinite mirror regression of all the copulating it took for me to arrive on the planet. It was humbling and yet overwhelming and I truly realized (not merely intellectually) that I am just a channel for the force of Life.
--------------------
|
Trepiodos
Disgustipated
Registered: 06/30/06
Posts: 469
Loc: Los Angeles County Jail
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
It's interesting that you should use the term, 'serpentine molecule' and then proceed to cite the sexual exploits of the Swami... I have a headache from the visualization.
-------------------- And as things fell apart, Nobody paid much attention... - David Byrne, '(Nothing But) Flowers' from the Talking Heads' album, 'Naked'
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 58 minutes
|
|
must have been some good acid
it's interesting to think how a molecule could rearrange perceptual frameworks to allow such an insight
though one could take the stand it was all self manifested from your own understanding of biology (now applied in real time)
still a powerful molecule
--------------------
|
adamlivesinCA
adam
Registered: 04/03/08
Posts: 86
Loc: the golden state
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: deff]
#10149176 - 04/11/09 07:28 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said: I think the biggest problem in this debate is the fact that the bible says that god created the world in a week and that was about 6000 years ago. Evolution says something very different. IT is possible to believe in both evolution and spiritual sense of a higher being, a creator. But evolution + religion? well there dont really seem to be many western religions that are compatible with evolution atm.
I dont see why no one has started an international church for people who believe in God but cannot come to grips with scriptures. The church could involve discussion as to what God really is and what he means to people. Maybe some ppl have tried and its not picked up? I dunno.. seems like the right thing to do.. A lot of people feel like there is a higher power at work but have trouble dealing with this because they think that they have to 'chose' a religion.
Doesnt the whole notion of following a religion seem disgusting? You KNOW that most people on earth have a different religion and that they believe it for the same reasons that you do (you were taught it by someone) and that their religion has the same evidence as yours (old stories).. but.. you still convict to your own religion? In today's world this seems really horrible.. and I dont think we should stand for it.
But no one is there, willing to help find GOD in todays world, as opposed to in the ancient world of scriptures. No one is willing to look for god withOUT initial assumptions as to what God is. Some will say - thats because GOD doesnt exist!
But I am not willing to say this, because I want to find a way of understanding the world that any person can assent to, even people with an emotional conviction in God (almost all exhibitions of 'human intelligence' have occured in people who believed in god.. so I think any attempt to seek greater understanding should be something that even the believers can agree with)
thats pretty deep you should read a little about unitarian universalism here are the first two sentences wikipedia has to say about it
"Unitarian Universalism (UUism) is a theologically liberal religion characterized by its support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. "
-------------------- "i know not with what weapons world war three with be fought, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones." -albert einstein Ran-D said: "Are you ever not hunting somewhere awesome? " Alan Rockefeller said: "No. I have my priorities straight. Most people have their priorities totally jacked up and aren't usually hunting for mushrooms. I don't know what to say to these guys, I am just like....Umm...you are fucked."
|
adamlivesinCA
adam
Registered: 04/03/08
Posts: 86
Loc: the golden state
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: deff]
#10149183 - 04/11/09 07:30 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
daytripper>The theory of evolution extends "beyond" any defining cause, or rather, it does not choose to assume of one. You might say that it is infinite in scope, while science is finite (within margins). Simplified way of looking at this difference, is that evolution is a step back from science, in that it is merely considered a series of effects, without addressing cause
how about this for cause: Natural Selection
-------------------- "i know not with what weapons world war three with be fought, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones." -albert einstein Ran-D said: "Are you ever not hunting somewhere awesome? " Alan Rockefeller said: "No. I have my priorities straight. Most people have their priorities totally jacked up and aren't usually hunting for mushrooms. I don't know what to say to these guys, I am just like....Umm...you are fucked."
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: adamlivesinCA]
#10151318 - 04/12/09 10:34 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event's occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability.
The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 1010123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.
THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM 10000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 10 00000000000000000000000000000000
Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God's existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs.
References:* Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9 source
I always thought it was mathematically impossible for there NOT to be more life in the universe... is this bullshit?
Edited by Cubie (04/12/09 10:49 AM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
#10151333 - 04/12/09 10:38 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM
The probability is exactly 1:1 or 100%. No amount of hand-waving can change that fact.
Next!
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
lol, good one.
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
|
was that a jedi joke
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
#10154180 - 04/12/09 07:58 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But it's true. The odds of us being here is 100%, because if we weren't here we wouldn't be able to calculate the odds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
-------------------- 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
|
adamlivesinCA
adam
Registered: 04/03/08
Posts: 86
Loc: the golden state
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
#10154399 - 04/12/09 08:26 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
i'm necessarily saying that i believe in aliens i'm just speaking hypothetically.
so from what i understand you're basically saying that our own existence is incomprehensibly improbable because the probability of the conditions we are adapted to live in actually existing in our universe is essentially zero.
so math says we cant exist and neither can our earth. but we do exist. we are the 1 out of <insert incomprehensibly large number> of possibilities that resulted in conditions we have on earth and produced the life we have on earth. this math simply implies that there cannot exist another form of life that has adapted to the exact conditions that exist in the place where we do. because those conditions will not be repeated. just as i cannot have a thumbprint exactly exactly like yours. but does that mean that you do not also have a thumbprint? in an infinitely large universe with no two planets exactly alike can life not have formed under some different set of conditions?
-------------------- "i know not with what weapons world war three with be fought, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones." -albert einstein Ran-D said: "Are you ever not hunting somewhere awesome? " Alan Rockefeller said: "No. I have my priorities straight. Most people have their priorities totally jacked up and aren't usually hunting for mushrooms. I don't know what to say to these guys, I am just like....Umm...you are fucked."
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: adamlivesinCA]
#10154853 - 04/12/09 09:55 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
math doesn't show what was claimed, most likely, as by the description it may have been fallacious reasoning.
Roll a marble down the hall and record its position vs time with very percise instruments. Looking back at its path you could calculate what the chance is that such a path would be taken and be shocked to find that your ver percise measurements mean the chances were astronomical that the exact path was taken. OMG! And yet it was just rolling a marble down the hall, what's so improbable? Nothing, its a texas sharpshooter fallacy
Just like calculating the chance that we came to be. Unless you know what conditions are neccesary for life, which we don't, and what are neccesary for our life to have evolved, and can quantify the probabilities, you are neccesarily looking back in time just like the marble and saying "that path was unlikely" when you don't realize that just like the hall where the marble could have arrived at the end location by any number of paths so could we have evolved or life began or whatever by alternate paths. That we don't know how to quantify or discover these alternate paths means the retrospective calculations of the sort that seems to have been done here is nonsense.
(I don't know what was actually done though, so just a caution, maybe the calculations were done validly)
But basically i cannot understand why folks do these god arguments with scientific data. While I'm guilty of believing in god in part because of these kinds of issues, its not like its a valid logical or scientific argument- its nonsense. You cannot argue the existance or lack of existance of an ill defined supernatural being- its totally pointless whether you are trying to argue its existance or not as by definition it is supernatural and thus your observations and calcualtions are utterly worthless.
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10155562 - 04/13/09 12:23 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: But it's true. The odds of us being here is 100%, because if we weren't here we wouldn't be able to calculate the odds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
man i dont really understand what your trying to say. I was not saying anything about the odds of us being here because that is simply retarded. My first post about the subject i gave was the probability of life forming, The source i got it from was saying that it is mathematically impossible for a universe to exist where life can form. So his argument was that because of the mathematical impossibility we must have been created by some higher power thus debunking evolution.
Then at the end of the post i made a BIG ORANGE sentence saying. Quote:
I always thought it was mathematically impossible for there NOT to be more life in the universe... is this bullshit?
So if someone is gonna discuss something or debunk something PLEASE atlest read my whole post
|
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]
#10155801 - 04/13/09 01:14 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: So you mean that evolution is similar to origin myths in a way that is irrelevant to the theory itself? That's a completely useless point and I don't know why you brought it up. It's like saying that sexual intercourse is an origin myth because it also tries to explain how we got here.
Everything is context. What we are talking about here is whether or not cultural influences play a part in the creation of the evolution paradigm. Ruse is making the claim they did. My point is that man will attempt, and has attempted numerous times, to explain his existence. And no, your example of sexual intercourse is a strawman. We can test for pregnancy. We cannot do that for macroevolution.
--------------------
|
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: johnm214]
#10155831 - 04/13/09 01:24 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
1. You do what i said: criticize science as foolish on the basis of some objection to some thought that was a hypothesis rather than an observation or conclusion premised upon rational presumptions. You say "oh they said science told me serum cholesterol is caused and well correlated to dietary cholesterol but they were wrong, science sucks" when in reality the premise is incorrect- science didn't say that, it was just a hypothesis for which no direct evidence existed. When the observations supported changing the hypothesis it was done, but its not like anyone was arguing that it is scientifically inconceivable that cholesterol resulted from other processes than dietary consumption.
Likewise you take what someone said in time magazine and purport that to be representative of some scientific dogma, and yet you never establish the premise as true before criticzing it. Just cuz a scientist or a paper says soemthing doesn't mean its some 'scientifically proven truth'. Much of the process is just guessing and supporting or refuting the guess on the basis of further evidence.
No, that is not what I am doing here. What I am doing here is trying to explain why Ruse explains that science, using evolution as an example, is much more dependent on cultural forces than on objectivity. I suggest going back and reading the posts I made that DIRECTLY address that.
Quote:
johnm214 said: Like zouden said, this seems a dishonest comparison, not useful at all.
In any case, greek origin myths do not yield testable predictions if they rely on supernatural creation at some point in the past. Science is different. You can test the theory of evolution in some ways, and in that sense it is a scientific theory. I suspect these origin myths have no predictions that may be tested and no evidence that directly supports them. If they have these things, then yeah it is, perhaps, though of as a scientific thought, but so what?
Whether someone finds the distinction useful or not will ultimately depend on their point of view. It's a side discussion. And you cannot, according to Popper, test evolution. He took a lot of heat for exposing it as unfalsifiable. It is a metaphysical research program. This, again, is a side issue.
THE issue is what Ruse is writing about. If you'd like to join me in discussing that, I'd be more than happy to oblige.
--------------------
|
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: daytripper23]
#10155846 - 04/13/09 01:28 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well, there's a few good posts here but I won't be addressing them. This thread isn't an argument against evolution other than what is found in the book.
For those that missed it, it is titled, Mystery of Mysteries IS EVOLUTION A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION?
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10155931 - 04/13/09 01:59 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
And you cannot, according to Popper, test evolution.
Popper is wrong.
-------------------- 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
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
#10155943 - 04/13/09 02:04 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cubie said: THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM 10000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 10 00000000000000000000000000000000
There isn't any evidence that the laws of physics can freeze out differently. It is just an unproved theory that the laws of physics can freeze out differently.
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Zanthius]
#10155955 - 04/13/09 02:08 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
did you read my whole post?
could you do me a favor and explain what in the heck you just said?
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
#10155962 - 04/13/09 02:12 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think he's saying that it's entirely possible that the universe can only have formed the way it did. In that case you'd be surprised how likely it is that intelligent life could have formed.
-------------------- 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
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10155978 - 04/13/09 02:18 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
And you had to have posted those exact words at this particular point in time.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
#10155980 - 04/13/09 02:18 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cubie said: did you read my whole post?
could you do me a favor and explain what in the heck you just said?
Well, it is true that if the laws of physics had been just a little bit different from what they are now, complex molecules would probably not be able to form.
Some physicists believe that the laws of physics freezed out after the big bang as the universe cooled down, much like a snow crystal forms. Then they argue that it is unlikely that such a snow crystal forms, that can form complex molecules.
|
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]
#10155988 - 04/13/09 02:23 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
And you cannot, according to Popper, test evolution.
Popper is wrong.
I suppose one bold assertion deserves another. However, if evolution could be tested and firm evidence supplied there would be no reason for mycologists to use the spartan genes of mushrooms combined with an even more spartan fossil evidence to bolster the theory. Remember, it is a theory, not a law.
There is the Hardy-Weinberg law, i.e. stasis.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10155992 - 04/13/09 02:26 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yes but evolution has been observed countless times, in the fossil record, in the field, and in the lab. There is no better theory to explain the diversity of life. If you think you have a better theory, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise I'm sticking with 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
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10155998 - 04/13/09 02:28 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
okay. Aparently you all think that post was My belief and that i am still wondering about it.
Let me clear this up in real plain english.
I was confused about the math for a moment because it went against everything i learned about life forming in this universe. now orgone cleared this up for me real fast with the next post.
zanthius- thank you for answering my question, i was curious and didnt mean to sound like a dick. Im no physicist
So lets get back to mystery of Mysteries IS EVOLUTION A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION?
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10156029 - 04/13/09 02:42 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: Yes but evolution has been observed countless times, in the fossil record, in the field, and in the lab. There is no better theory to explain the diversity of life. If you think you have a better theory, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise I'm sticking with evolution.
Well, I am quite certain that our DNA-repair mechanisms doesn't work perfectly, or else we wouldn't get cancer. When mutations are occurring in our genes, of course there is a probability that some of the mutations might give increased reproductive success. ( Especially those mutations occurring from the usage of magic mushrooms :P )
Edited by Zanthius (04/13/09 02:58 AM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Zanthius]
#10156072 - 04/13/09 02:56 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Which is why I find it surprising that so many people struggle to understand how evolution could be possible. To me it seems obvious.
-------------------- 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
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10156078 - 04/13/09 02:57 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
evolution is obvious
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
#10156080 - 04/13/09 02:58 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cubie said: evolution is obvious
QFT, everything evolves.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
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]
#10156092 - 04/13/09 03:03 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: Yes but evolution has been observed countless times, in the fossil record, in the field, and in the lab. There is no better theory to explain the diversity of life. If you think you have a better theory, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise I'm sticking with evolution.
Actually, macroevolution is only an interpretation of the fossil evidence. That's akin to saying alien spacecraft have been observed. It's a weak argument. The same for in the field. We cannot observe speciation and we haven't. We can look at two different yet very similar organisms and hypothesize they will break into different species. As you know, speciation is supposed to take a long, long time. And what we see in the lab is then extrapolated to seemingly give evidence for our interpretation of the facts. Ruse's point is that much culture goes into any position.
When I get some time I'll post a passage.
The fact that a materialist philosophy, i.e. methodological naturalism, cannot produce a better argument for our origin is a moot point. It's like looking at the back of someone's head to describe their face. We need more tools than that.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10156125 - 04/13/09 03:12 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: Actually, macroevolution is only an interpretation of the fossil evidence. That's akin to saying alien spacecraft have been observed. It's a weak argument.
Macroevolution fits very well into the scheme with microevolution, and macroevolution is an expected consequence from microevolution.
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Zanthius]
#10156190 - 04/13/09 03:34 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Microevolution has a lot of evidence in the study of alleles, but they dont even know what causes it, Its a nice long list- mutation, natural selection, artificial selection, gene flow and genetic drift
Quote:
Misuse
The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other is seen to occur over thousands of years (ie. a quantitative difference).[1] Essentially they describe the same process.
The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
I found that pretty funny.
AAAS Response to Intelligent Design Propaganda Movie: A new movie released in support of the intelligent design campaign needlessly drives a wedge between science and religion and insults the life-affirming work of millions of scientists worldwide, AAAS said in a statement issued 18 April 2008. AAAS also released a short video (as: Streaming Real or YouTube video) illustrating why science and religion need not be in opposition.source
Microevolution House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution — evolution on a small scale. Heres a nice site that has a lot of cool studys. im really high
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10156226 - 04/13/09 03:49 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
zouden said: Yes but evolution has been observed countless times, in the fossil record, in the field, and in the lab. There is no better theory to explain the diversity of life. If you think you have a better theory, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise I'm sticking with evolution.
Actually, macroevolution is only an interpretation of the fossil evidence. That's akin to saying alien spacecraft have been observed. It's a weak argument. The same for in the field. We cannot observe speciation and we haven't. We can look at two different yet very similar organisms and hypothesize they will break into different species. As you know, speciation is supposed to take a long, long time.
As I said earlier, I don't see any better theories explaining the diversity of life on earth.
-------------------- 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
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10156231 - 04/13/09 03:53 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
are you guys gonna keep talking about the same things over and over again. its like ur going in circles about the same damn things. i dunno maybe im just tired and high
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
#10156236 - 04/13/09 03:55 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I'm just waiting to learn why evolution isn't a scientific theory.
-------------------- 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
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10156243 - 04/13/09 03:58 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
im pretty sure it was explained that the title was a "bait and switch" a long time ago.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10156787 - 04/13/09 09:08 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: Yes but evolution has been observed countless times, in the fossil record, in the field, and in the lab. There is no better theory to explain the diversity of life. If you think you have a better theory, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise I'm sticking with evolution.
-------------------- "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
|
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]
#10157054 - 04/13/09 10:35 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: I'm just waiting to learn why evolution isn't a scientific theory.
You'll have to forgive my snail-like pace. At the end of the discussion all we will learn are Ruse's reasons for saying that. Whether it is the case or not is another story.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10157719 - 04/13/09 12:36 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
zouden said: Yes but evolution has been observed countless times, in the fossil record, in the field, and in the lab. There is no better theory to explain the diversity of life. If you think you have a better theory, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise I'm sticking with evolution.
Actually, macroevolution is only an interpretation of the fossil evidence. That's akin to saying alien spacecraft have been observed. It's a weak argument. The same for in the field. We cannot observe speciation and we haven't. We can look at two different yet very similar organisms and hypothesize they will break into different species. As you know, speciation is supposed to take a long, long time.
As I said earlier, I don't see any better theories explaining the diversity of life on earth.
How the hell is it we don't observe speciation? I see plenty of birds and all sorts of shit every day. The formal record of recovered bird pictures, fossils, bird jesus manuscripts, et cet clearly paint a picture of the different species of birds and their genetic ancestors.
I suspect your using some definitions that may differ from those others are using. If you disagree with this please define the relevant claims, i.e. what is speciation such that we don't observe it?
|
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: johnm214]
#10163031 - 04/14/09 08:59 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Without getting overly involved in the discussion of species and speciation, let me just post a quote and a link. Species, as taxonomic units, first belong to philosophy and the philosophy of biological science. It is from that understanding that our knowledge is correlated.
2.2 Species as Individuals
Quote:
Let us turn to the prevailing view of the ontological status of species. Ghiselin (1974) and Hull (1978) suggest that instead of viewing species as natural kinds we should think of them as individuals. Hull draws the ontological distinction this way. (Instead of the phrase ‘natural kind,’ Hull uses the term ‘class.’) Classes are groups of entities that can function in scientific laws. One requirement of such laws is that they are true at any time and at any place in the universe. If ‘All copper conducts electricity’ is a law, then that law is true here and now, as well as 100,000 years ago on some distant planet. Copper is a class because samples of copper are spatiotemporally unrestricted —copper can occur anywhere in the universe. Individuals, unlike classes, consist of parts that are spatiotemporally restricted. Think of a paradigmatic individual, a single mammalian organism. The parts of that organism cannot be scattered around the universe at different times if they are parts of a living, functioning organism. Various biological processes, such as digestion and respiration, require that those parts be causally and spatiotemporally connected. The parts of such an organism can only exist in a particular space-time region. In brief, individuals consist of parts that are spatiotemporally restricted. Classes consist of members that are spatiotemporally unrestricted.
Given the class/individual distinction, Ghiselin and Hull argue that species are individuals, not classes. Their argument assumes that the term ‘species’ is a theoretical term in evolutionary theory. So their argument concerning the ontological status of species focuses on the role of ‘species’ in evolutionary biology. Here is Hull's version of the argument, which can be dubbed the ‘evolutionary unit argument.’
The Evolutionary Unit Argument: Since Darwin, species have been considered units of evolution. When Hull and others assert that species are units of evolution, they do not simply mean that the gene frequencies of a species change from one generation to the next. They have a more significant form of evolution in mind, namely a trait going from being rare to being prominent in a species. A classic example of such evolution is the change in frequencies of different colored peppered moths in Nineteenth Century England. Prior to the industrial revolution, most peppered moths were light gray and few were coal black. During the industrial revolution, selection caused the frequency of coal black peppered moths to dramatically increase.
A number of processes can cause a trait to become prominent in a species. Hull highlights selection. Selection causes a trait to become prominent in a species only if that trait is passed down from one generation to the next. If a trait is not heritable, the frequency of that trait will not increase cumulatively. Hereditary relations, genetic or otherwise, require the generations of a species to be causally connected. Reproduction requires the generations of a species to be causally and hence spatiotemporally connected. So, if species are to evolve in non trivial ways by natural selection, they must be spatiotemporally continuous entities. Given that species are units of evolution, species are individuals and not classes. (For recent responses to the Evolutionary Unit Argument see Dupré 2001, Reydon 2003, and Crane 2004.)
The conclusion that species are individuals has a number of interesting implications. For one, the relationship between an organism and its species is not a member/class relation but a part/whole relation. An organism belongs to a particular species only if it is appropriately causally connected to the other organisms in that species. The organisms of a species must be parts of a single evolving lineage. If belonging to a species turns on an organism's insertion in a lineage, then qualitative similarity can be misleading. Two organisms may be very similar morphologically, genetically, and behaviorally, but unless they belong to the same spatiotemporally continuous lineage they cannot belong to the same species. Think of an analogy. Being part of my immediate family turns on my wife, my children and I having certain biological relations to one another, not our having similar features. It does not matter that my son's best friend looks just like him. That friend is not part of our family. Similarly, organisms belong to a particular species because they are appropriately causally connected, not because they look similar (if they indeed do).
Another implication of the species are individuals thesis concerns our conception of human nature (Hull 1978). As we have seen, species are first and foremost genealogical lineages. An organism belongs to a species because it is part of a lineage not because it has a particular qualitative feature. Humans may be a number of things. One of them is being the species Homo sapiens. From an evolutionary perspective, there is no biological essence to being a human. There is no essential feature that all and only humans must have to be part of Homo sapiens. Humans are not essentially rational beings or social animals or ethical agents. An organism can be born without any of these features and still be a human. From a biological perspective, being part of the lineage Homo sapiens is both necessary and sufficient for being a human. (For further implications of the individuality thesis, see Hull 1978 and Buller 2005.)
The rest of the article is quite informative.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/
--------------------
|
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: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10163063 - 04/14/09 09:13 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This is a problem I see with Popper and his objectivist outlook. I agree with Popper to the extent that science should be conducted "value-free," but is it? I would say no. Here one of Popper's critics, Longino, raises an important objection:
Quote:
The idea of a value-free science presupposes that the object of inquiry is given in and by nature, whereas contextual analysis shows that such objects are constituted in part by social needs and interests that become encoded in the assumptions of research programs. Instead of remaining passive with respect to the data and what the data suggests, we can, therefore, acknowledge our ability to affect the course of knowledge and fashion or favor research programs that are consistent with the values and commitments we express in the rest of our lives. From this perspective the idea of a value-free science is not just empty but pernicious.
In Darwin's day he was, at first, a Deist. The values guiding his science were the upward progression of man and nature. Everything was being "perfected." Later, after his relationship with Huxley, Darwin became more agnostic. (It's funny how that happens.) Values drove Darwin just as values drive much research that goes on today.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10165195 - 04/14/09 04:10 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think it's true to say we can't observe speciation. We can observe it in the fossil record.
-------------------- 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
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10165214 - 04/14/09 04:14 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: I don't think it's true to say we can't observe speciation. We can observe it in the fossil record.
We can observe one species following another in the fossil record. We have not yet observed one species giving birth to another.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Silversoul]
#10165230 - 04/14/09 04:17 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: We can observe one species following another in the fossil record. We have not yet observed one species giving birth to another.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Silversoul]
#10165237 - 04/14/09 04:19 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
zouden said: I don't think it's true to say we can't observe speciation. We can observe it in the fossil record.
We can observe one species following another in the fossil record. We have not yet observed one species giving birth to another.
What about slight mutations? That change a given species slightly? What about things like dog breeding?
-------------------- "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
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Silversoul]
#10165253 - 04/14/09 04:21 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
zouden said: I don't think it's true to say we can't observe speciation. We can observe it in the fossil record.
We can observe one species following another in the fossil record. We have not yet observed one species giving birth to another.
Well that's because one species can't give birth to another. That's not how speciation works.
-------------------- 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
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10165272 - 04/14/09 04:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Look Zu-zu, until I see a horse give birth to a zebra, I am not buying any of your sci-fi crap.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10165275 - 04/14/09 04:25 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
zouden said: I don't think it's true to say we can't observe speciation. We can observe it in the fossil record.
We can observe one species following another in the fossil record. We have not yet observed one species giving birth to another.
Well that's because one species can't give birth to another. That's not how speciation works.
yeah, by definition we can't see speciation if that's what it means (in most life anyways)
I'm not reading all that in search of yoru definition and claim, MM. If you'd like to answer my questions or clarify feel free. To me it looks like a bunch of equivocation, which I tried to forstall by asking you what speciation is such that we cannot observe it.
I've allready stated how we can observe speciation, tell us why that's incorrect and what you mean by speciation.
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Look Zu-zu, until I see a horse give birth to a zebra, I am not buying any of your sci-fi crap.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Look Zu-zu, until I see a horse give birth to a zebra, I am not buying any of your sci-fi crap.
http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/zorse_horse_zebra.jpg
Half way there.
-------------------- "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
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10165307 - 04/14/09 04:31 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
what the hell is that thing, a horse or a zebra? or photoshop'd
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Look Zu-zu, until I see a horse give birth to a zebra, I am not buying any of your sci-fi crap.
Dear Sir, may I interest you in a Zorse?
Or perhaps a Zonkey would better suit Sir's taste?
And for the most discerning gentlemen, we have a very special Zorse, born of a horse with x-linked mosaicism in the fur genes. Truly a one-of-a-kind!
-------------------- 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
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10165334 - 04/14/09 04:34 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Bleach!
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10165359 - 04/14/09 04:38 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You just like to use words that begin with a 'Z'.
--------------------
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
|
I WANT A ZONKEY!
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
#10165379 - 04/14/09 04:40 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
They have no intelligence.
-------------------- "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
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 58 minutes
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10165387 - 04/14/09 04:42 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
zonkeys are cute!
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: deff]
#10165400 - 04/14/09 04:43 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I zant one!
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10165412 - 04/14/09 04:46 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If you cross a horse with a donkey you get a Honkey.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Fuck you are so funny man.
-------------------- "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
|
Cubie
Moderator
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,840
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: If you cross a horse with a donkey you get a Honkey.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10165454 - 04/14/09 04:52 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Proof that drugs and brains don't mix.
--------------------
|
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: johnm214]
#10166227 - 04/14/09 06:36 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
We cannot observe speciation as an event. What we observe are the effects that we interpret as speciation. I think SilverSoul was alluding to this.
--------------------
|
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: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10166266 - 04/14/09 06:39 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: This is a problem I see with Popper and his objectivist outlook. I agree with Popper to the extent that science should be conducted "value-free," but is it? I would say no. Here one of Popper's critics, Longino, raises an important objection:
Quote:
The idea of a value-free science presupposes that the object of inquiry is given in and by nature, whereas contextual analysis shows that such objects are constituted in part by social needs and interests that become encoded in the assumptions of research programs. Instead of remaining passive with respect to the data and what the data suggests, we can, therefore, acknowledge our ability to affect the course of knowledge and fashion or favor research programs that are consistent with the values and commitments we express in the rest of our lives. From this perspective the idea of a value-free science is not just empty but pernicious.
In Darwin's day he was, at first, a Deist. The values guiding his science were the upward progression of man and nature. Everything was being "perfected." Later, after his relationship with Huxley, Darwin became more agnostic. (It's funny how that happens.) Values drove Darwin just as values drive much research that goes on today.
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.
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10167148 - 04/14/09 08:41 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
zouden said: I don't think it's true to say we can't observe speciation. We can observe it in the fossil record.
We can observe one species following another in the fossil record. We have not yet observed one species giving birth to another.
Well that's because one species can't give birth to another. That's not how speciation works.
How does it work exactly? I mean, I know that changes are supposed to take gradually, but in many cases speciation involves extra chromosomes. I would think that in such a case, you'd have to have some dividing line where you can say one species is different from another.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Silversoul]
#10169182 - 04/15/09 01:43 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But chromosomes can be gained or lost in a single generation. Happens all the time in humans.
And no, there's no dividing line, because speciation usually happens as a result of geographic isolation. There are monkeys in South America and monkeys in Africa, because the continents used to be joined. After the continents split apart, genetic drift caused the South American population to become distinct from the African population, to the point where they can't interbreed successfully.
-------------------- 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
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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]
#10169226 - 04/15/09 02:01 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: We cannot observe speciation as an event. What we observe are the effects that we interpret as speciation. I think SilverSoul was alluding to this.
But that's the same with all events. We can't observe a supernova, but we can observe the effects (light hitting our telescope). We interpret this light to mean a supernova occurred.
At the other extreme: we can't observe cells dividing, but we can measure the number of cells in a test tube over time, and interpret that to mean they divided. We could even put a cell under a microscope and take photos of it during the very act of mitosis, but we still can only interpret the images to mean that cell division took place.
Telescopes, microscopes, fossils: all just tools.
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.
-------------------- 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
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10169430 - 04/15/09 03:49 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Right, this is what I was saying. The thing is, most scientific theories do not have the notion of transcendence as quite so essential to their definition. This is why evolution is a particularly unique term.
First of all, a series of events are described as scientific in nature, because they fit firmly within the margins of phenomenology. This is because scientific theory is founded upon the philosophical assumptions of naturalism, namely that reality is objective and observable, or as I said in specific in previous posts, that phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
In contrast to a theory scientific in nature, evolution may reasonably signify nature itself, or change itself (as opposed to what is founded upon causal evidence). For example, I might reasonably say that I am evolving, or I am subject to evolution, implying that evolution is a self explanatory, a natural function. But inasmuch as this meaning of evolution is rooted "nature", it is by definition outside the realm of scientific discourse.
Naturally, a scientific theory cannot encompass the same assumption or appeal to nature that it is founded upon.
Now you may indicate that this is not what the science of evolution actually claims, and I never disagreed with this. But, again that doesn't mean that I or anyone else cannot describe evolution as a natural event; as nature itself or change itself. And I don't think this is necessarily unreasonable, even if it does extend beyond science.
The same is true, and even more apparent for the term "natural selection". To the extent that natural selection either implies or explicates an appeal to nature (as its name outwardly signifies), it cannot be considered scientific. Again, you might indicate that natural selection only claims "this and would not claim that", as solely within the margins of science; but again this doesn't counteract its common use in language. It is called "natural selection", after all, so it is really not so far fetched that this concept is being convoluted with its assumptive extensions beyond scientific margins, even within the scientific community.
But I do not have the expertise to know for sure, so I would not attack scientific evolution. I am acknowledging its effective usage that spans beyond science though. Of course there are instances where the discourse surrounding evolution is useful outside of science; you can't just deny it. For instance, the Eastern Sects had an entire philosophy based in naturalistic change, and Nietzsche applied a sort of Lamarckian evolutionary theory to human relations, to announce the death of God. These are very good philosophies in my opinion.
If you would for a moment forget the "authority" of your particular language and actually try to understand what I'm saying in one or two of my posts, you would see that I have not exactly been disagreeing with you. What I am saying, is that for better or worse, evolution significantly extends beyond science as an ideology.
There is no authority but of signification and use value. These appeals, whether they are scientific, religious, or anything else, are geared toward some use. This may be technological, or for the creation of some effigy, but it is fundamentally a control and exercise of resources, and this is not limited from our minds. That is typically the "authority" of truth, and inappropriately compounding science with naturalism, instead of as hierarchical parts, or otherwise appealing to "science for science's sake" often falls into this catagory.
An appeal to authority as truth, or anything that muddles the bare, arbitrary conditions of knowledge, is only evidence of bad faith. To quote one of my favorite quotes: "whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference." -Albert Camus
Because the notion of evolution can appropriately extend beyond science, it is given that science is going to be on occasion, misappropriated by some people. Many dogmatic individuals pose as scientists, many scientists are dogmatists, there is no difference. They are both going to dogmatically claim that evolution in its "greater sense" is a science.
Immanence and transcendence, this is the conduct of knowledge. Where does evolution fall? No doubt it is incredibly significant to this archaic science, but some people want to say that it is inordinately both at the same time. In other words, this is as I previously described, the inappropriate compounding of naturalism and science.
I won't deny that its an awesome thought worth pondering, but most people tend to only apply it as a reactionary ideology.
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
Edited by daytripper23 (04/15/09 05:54 AM)
|
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]
#10171707 - 04/15/09 01:41 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: We cannot observe speciation as an event. What we observe are the effects that we interpret as speciation. I think SilverSoul was alluding to this.
But that's the same with all events. We can't observe a supernova, but we can observe the effects (light hitting our telescope). We interpret this light to mean a supernova occurred.
At the other extreme: we can't observe cells dividing, but we can measure the number of cells in a test tube over time, and interpret that to mean they divided. We could even put a cell under a microscope and take photos of it during the very act of mitosis, but we still can only interpret the images to mean that cell division took place.
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.
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: In Darwin's day he was, at first, a Deist. The values guiding his science were the upward progression of man and nature. Everything was being "perfected." Later, after his relationship with Huxley, Darwin became more agnostic. (It's funny how that happens.) Values drove Darwin just as values drive much research that goes on today.
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.
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,009
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10172034 - 04/15/09 02:43 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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.
-------------------- _ 🧠 _
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
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
|
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: 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.
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,009
|
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.
-------------------- _ 🧠 _
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
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
|
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: 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.
--------------------
|
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: redgreenvines]
#10172807 - 04/15/09 05:06 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That wasn't too smarmy, was it?
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,009
|
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?
-------------------- _ 🧠 _
|
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: 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.
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,009
|
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
-------------------- _ 🧠 _
|
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]
#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.
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.
--------------------
|
|