Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10155562 -

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


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

Sid and Mr. Madhat <part one> A story by Cubie P. Cubensis
<> I WANNA SMOKE THIS BOWL <> <A comic by Cubie P. Cubensis>

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10155801 -

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.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: johnm214]
    #10155831 -

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.


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.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
    #10155846 -

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?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10155931 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
    #10155943 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Zanthius]
    #10155955 -

did you read my whole post?

could you do me a favor and explain what in the heck you just said?


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

Sid and Mr. Madhat <part one> A story by Cubie P. Cubensis
<> I WANNA SMOKE THIS BOWL <> <A comic by Cubie P. Cubensis>

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
    #10155962 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10155978 -

And you had to have posted those exact words at this particular point in time. :yesnod:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
    #10155980 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10155988 -

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.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10155992 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10155998 -

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?


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

Sid and Mr. Madhat <part one> A story by Cubie P. Cubensis
<> I WANNA SMOKE THIS BOWL <> <A comic by Cubie P. Cubensis>

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10156029 -

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Zanthius]
    #10156072 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10156078 -

evolution is obvious


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

Sid and Mr. Madhat <part one> A story by Cubie P. Cubensis
<> I WANNA SMOKE THIS BOWL <> <A comic by Cubie P. Cubensis>

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
    #10156080 -

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 Dylan
fireworks_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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10156092 -

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.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10156125 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Zanthius]
    #10156190 -

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  :jointsmile:


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

Sid and Mr. Madhat <part one> A story by Cubie P. Cubensis
<> I WANNA SMOKE THIS BOWL <> <A comic by Cubie P. Cubensis>

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

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* No Evolution threads allowed.
( 1 2 all )		 sir tripsalot 3,584 29 10/04/02 11:50 PM
by Anonymous
* The Idea of Evolution is BS
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 World Spirit 19,612 165 07/21/02 09:44 AM
by whiterastahippie
* Post deleted by Anno Anonymous 1,265 12 03/18/04 03:30 PM
by silversoul7
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Anonymous 4,741 64 01/30/03 06:45 AM
by Teragon
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,361 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Evolution Of Humans
( 1 2 all )		 superfine 2,150 23 04/21/03 05:11 PM
by pattern
* What is a "theory"? Anonymous 681 5 01/15/04 07:22 AM
by anarchyhollow
* Creationism / Evolution
( 1 2 all )		 angryshroom 2,647 23 11/11/03 06:29 AM
by StrangeDays

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
14,495 topic views. 1 members, 297 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 18 queries.