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

PlanetSpores.ca
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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Mix   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10290343 -

Look at how atomic theory has developed over the past 100 years. 

Evolution works the same way, and indeed, it has changed from darwin's original theory.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: xFrockx]
    #10290385 -

xFrockx said:
Look at how atomic theory has developed over the past 100 years. 

Evolution works the same way, and indeed, it has changed from darwin's original theory.


Yes, I am looking forward to the day when evolutionary theory incorporates intelligent agency as it did Mendelian genetics.  But your post doesn't answer my question with specifics.  I want to know, specifically, what would falsify evolution?

Sorry to hear about your school's emphasis on logical positivism.  What a shit that must be.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10291055 -

Quote:
Yes, I am looking forward to the day when evolutionary theory incorporates intelligent agency as it did Mendelian genetics. 


That will be the day after we find evidence for an intelligent agency. So far there's no irrefutable evidence; there's nothing that can't be explained by natural phenomena. But if aliens appeared and showed us how we were designed, then I'd think we'd greatly revise our theories.


--------------------
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: Falsifying evolution? [Re: zouden]
    #10291416 -

"What a shit that must be. "

Whats wrong with logical positivism?  At least its not continentalism...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: xFrockx]
    #10292084 -

xFrockx said:
"What a shit that must be. "

Whats wrong with logical positivism?  At least its not continentalism...


Are you serious?  The analytic tradition is filled with linguistic wankers who think the meaning of life is to be found through conceptual analysis; give me continental all the way.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: zouden]
    #10292816 -

zouden said:
Quote:
Yes, I am looking forward to the day when evolutionary theory incorporates intelligent agency as it did Mendelian genetics. 


That will be the day after we find evidence for an intelligent agency. So far there's no irrefutable evidence; there's nothing that can't be explained by natural phenomena. But if aliens appeared and showed us how we were designed, then I'd think we'd greatly revise our theories.



Baseless claims are, well, baseless.  Much like subjective opinions, they add nothing to the conversation.  We have all the evidence we need for ID.



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: deCypher]
    #10292828 -

deCypher said:
xFrockx said:
"What a shit that must be. "

Whats wrong with logical positivism?  At least its not continentalism...


Are you serious?  The analytic tradition is filled with linguistic wankers who think the meaning of life is to be found through conceptual analysis.


A better question would be: what is right with logical positivism?

Certainly a scintillating topic for another thread, someday.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: deCypher]
    #10293120 -

Thats just slander, contenentalists just get by with no answers, and half the shit is either blatantly contradictory or outright mystical.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: xFrockx]
    #10293171 -

xFrockx said:
Thats just slander, contenentalists just get by with no answers, and half the shit is either blatantly contradictory or outright mystical.


Please notice I deleted that part from my quote.  We might have a lot of fun someday discussing this.  For me, right now isn't a good time.

Morels are fruiting.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: xFrockx]
    #10293642 -

xFrockx said:
Thats just slander, contenentalists just get by with no answers, and half the shit is either blatantly contradictory or outright mystical.


Yeah but at least they're trying to tackle the big questions.  I agree that a solid grounding in analytic logic is a must when supporting a theory, but for god's sake try to construct a theory worth having.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: deCypher]
    #10293689 -

Quote:
but for god's sake try to construct a theory worth having


*corrected*

"but for 'an alleged, invisable, unknowable, supernatural, yet without a shred of evidence - creator of the Universe's' sake try to construct a theory worth having"


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10293709 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
but for god's sake try to construct a theory worth having


*corrected*

"but for 'an alleged, invisable, unknowable, supernatural, yet without a shred of evidence - creator of the Universe's' sake try to construct a theory worth having"


Try to stay on topic.  And it's invisible, not invisable.  Do they have spell check in your country?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10294986 -

Mr. Mushrooms said:
This depends on which branch of science we are talking about.  Certainly forensics, archeology, SETI, etc all posit an intelligent agency.  Only biology precludes it.  We all know why.  Teleology, depending on how it is defined, is verboten in natural science:

Quote:
As a school of thought it can be contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which views nature as having no design or purpose. Teleology would say that a person has eyes because he has the need of eyesight (form following function), while naturalism would say that a person has sight because he has eyes (function following form).




Unlike criminals, human civilizations and planetary life we have no observable precedent for universe creator/designer. It's fine to see biological design as analogous to individual human design, but science can't just go ascribing teleology to inexplicable agencies in blatant species-centric self-justification. Explication is much of the goal of science, and as that ability expands it represents enhanced understanding of this one all-powerful agency. Is it too much to ask of the individual to find his own purpose within Nature's workings?

Eyes are a fascinating development, but not all creatures have them, and in tracing out the reasons for us to have this special gift and other creatures to have others, all teleology is ultimately inescapably wrapped up in our own perceptions of purpose. Here, these traits survive, these other species go extinct - what was intelligent about that, why wasn't everything created perfectly or created to last, it's a lot like manufacturing processes, maybe, how they'll improve over time, which is a lot like evolution, which is what we'll call it when we can't ever see the Manufacturer. It's all us talking it over.

Quote:
We are told by the high priests of evolution - speaking of power-hungry religious institutions - that design is observed but merely apparent.  It isn't actual design.  Of course this is horseshit as evidenced by the bacterial flagellum.  The flagellum isn't an "apparent" motor, it is a motor.  A motor that can revolve up to 100,000 revolutions per minute and stop within a quarter turn.  A motor for which only 10 of its 40 parts can be found, anywhere.  It isn't like a machine, it is a machine.


I just see this "merely apparent" as science's way of saying "natural, for lack of a better word" - whereas you and others feel it appears natural for an unnamed designer to be setting the course. Honestly I don't see much difference, and I wonder why this intelligent agency requires an exemption from natural explanation, and what that really means, and what you mean by this intelligent agency.

I find your view intriguing but I'm puzzled at the insistence on its fuck-you overturning of scientific observation.

Quote:
Since biology has restricted itself to natural causes for life, and cannot be falsified because of it, evolution fails to be science.


Within a system of natural observation, natural causes can only be falsified by other natural causes. If we really understand an intelligent agency, that agency becomes a natural cause that falsifies what preceded. Something posited as beyond nature, however, cannot be delineated within natural theory and thus cannot be falsified.


--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10295002 -

Quote:
And it's invisible, not invisable.


When discussing made-up entities I use made-up words. :jedi:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: zouden]
    #10295075 -

zouden said:
>Nature did it or an intelligent agency did it.  Since science cannot entertain an intelligent agency,  evolution is not falsifiable, which means it isn't science.

If nature did it, it doesn't mean that it did it via Darwinian evolution. Could have been Lamarckian.




Exactly.  This point has been made previously.



Evolutionary theory being wrong isn't synonymous with intelligent direction of life or whatever, and evidence that the former is wrong doesn't establish the later.



This has been observed repeatedly (along with the definition of evolution as being natural causes of speciation being wrong) and I"ve not seen any decent response.


Its just ignroed and other posts are responded to.


Several ways in which evolution could be wrong have been posted and then its just ignored and this whopper comes out with no justification for it.  WTF is going on?


This has all been covered before, and this is the central problem with the entire confusion that motivated this post.


EDIT:  I'm referring to posts like the following.

Several ways in which evolution could have been falsified some time after the theory was posited have been made without rebutal.  The reply below is just irrelevant as it redefines evolution to be something it isn't.
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Qubit said:
Bottom line: If I got news today that there was a biosphere with species just as earth's out in the cosmos, with our geological record still intact, that would falsify natural selection as the mechanism for evolution.  There would have to be something else...


As far as I can see this is correct.  However, even if natural selection wasn't the chosen vehicle science would still be left with natural causes.  Meaning it can't be falsified.



Edited by johnm214 (05/06/09 05:19 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: johnm214]
    #10295170 -

Quote:
This has all been covered before, and this is the central problem with the entire confusion that motivated this post.


:sadyes:


--------------------
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: Falsifying evolution? [Re: zannennagara]
    #10295618 -

How many here have bothered to inform themselves on both sides of the argument?  And by informed I mean actually read a book on intelligent design.  Arguing without that benefit means arguing in the dark.  Some find that sport; I call it ignorance.

zannennagara said:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
This depends on which branch of science we are talking about.  Certainly forensics, archeology, SETI, etc all posit an intelligent agency.  Only biology precludes it.  We all know why.  Teleology, depending on how it is defined, is verboten in natural science:

Quote:
As a school of thought it can be contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which views nature as having no design or purpose. Teleology would say that a person has eyes because he has the need of eyesight (form following function), while naturalism would say that a person has sight because he has eyes (function following form).




Unlike criminals, human civilizations and planetary life we have no observable precedent for universe creator/designer. It's fine to see biological design as analogous to individual human design, but science can't just go ascribing teleology to inexplicable agencies in blatant species-centric self-justification. Explication is much of the goal of science, and as that ability expands it represents enhanced understanding of this one all-powerful agency. Is it too much to ask of the individual to find his own purpose within Nature's workings?


Yes, it is too much to ask as it severely limits the answers obtained.  Blind men don't make good critics of oil paintings.

zannennagara said:
Eyes are a fascinating development, but not all creatures have them, and in tracing out the reasons for us to have this special gift and other creatures to have others, all teleology is ultimately inescapably wrapped up in our own perceptions of purpose. Here, these traits survive, these other species go extinct - what was intelligent about that, why wasn't everything created perfectly or created to last, it's a lot like manufacturing processes, maybe, how they'll improve over time, which is a lot like evolution, which is what we'll call it when we can't ever see the Manufacturer. It's all us talking it over.


You're conflating intelligence with wisdom, an old, stale Kenneth Miller claim.

zannennagara said:
Quote:
We are told by the high priests of evolution - speaking of power-hungry religious institutions - that design is observed but merely apparent.  It isn't actual design.  Of course this is horseshit as evidenced by the bacterial flagellum.  The flagellum isn't an "apparent" motor, it is a motor.  A motor that can revolve up to 100,000 revolutions per minute and stop within a quarter turn.  A motor for which only 10 of its 40 parts can be found, anywhere.  It isn't like a machine, it is a machine.


I just see this "merely apparent" as science's way of saying "natural, for lack of a better word" - whereas you and others feel it appears natural for an unnamed designer to be setting the course. Honestly I don't see much difference, and I wonder why this intelligent agency requires an exemption from natural explanation, and what that really means, and what you mean by this intelligent agency.


The issue of what is natural is a separate subject.  I do not think any intelligent agent is natural because for evolution to assume so is begging the question.

zannennagara said:
I find your view intriguing but I'm puzzled at the insistence on its fuck-you overturning of scientific observation.


Then you misread my thought and my posts.  Scientific observation is wonderful...in its place.  When it fails to yield total answers we should look for other causes.  I certainly am puzzled by biology's and biologist's stubborn refusal to look at or consider intelligent agency as causation.  My only assumption there is one of theological implication.  And as I've said, that is the worst reason to discount an idea.

zannennagara said:
Quote:
Since biology has restricted itself to natural causes for life, and cannot be falsified because of it, evolution fails to be science.


Within a system of natural observation, natural causes can only be falsified by other natural causes. If we really understand an intelligent agency, that agency becomes a natural cause that falsifies what preceded. Something posited as beyond nature, however, cannot be delineated within natural theory and thus cannot be falsified.


An intelligent agent as a natural cause not only conflates the difference between natural and unnatural, it begs the question.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: johnm214]
    #10295641 -

johnm214 said:
Evolutionary theory being wrong isn't synonymous with intelligent direction of life or whatever, and evidence that the former is wrong doesn't establish the later.


Precisely.  But it all depends on which way evolutionary theory is wrong.  It can misplace a fossil or two and we just ad hoc save the theory from destruction.  But when the theory cannot find a sufficient reason for assembled motors or even find the parts in any other living thing, we have evidence for other causation if we understand what the explanatory filter does and how it works.


Mr. Mushrooms said:
Qubit said:
Bottom line: If I got news today that there was a biosphere with species just as earth's out in the cosmos, with our geological record still intact, that would falsify natural selection as the mechanism for evolution.  There would have to be something else...


As far as I can see this is correct.  However, even if natural selection wasn't the chosen vehicle science would still be left with natural causes.  Meaning it can't be falsified.




What exactly did Qubit mean?  Perhaps if that is clarified I can give a better answer.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: zouden]
    #10295644 -

zouden said:
Quote:
This has all been covered before, and this is the central problem with the entire confusion that motivated this post.


:sadyes:



At this point I'm considering such statements to be such a clever dodge I might start using it myself.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Falsifying evolution? [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10295674 -

Quote:
I certainly am puzzled by biology's and biologist's stubborn refusal to look at or consider intelligent agency as causation.  My only assumption there is one of theological implication.


:confused: I don't know why you think there's a stubborn refusal to consider intelligent design. It was widely accepted until 150 years ago.


--------------------
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
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]

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

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

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Pinellas, Florida: Evolution's Not Enough
( 1 2 3 all )		 DiploidM 4,740 48 01/04/06 04:32 PM
by BlueCoyote
* Bush Wants Kids Taught 'Intelligent Design' In Biology Class
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 DiploidM 14,484 102 08/10/05 12:54 AM
by MushmanTheManic
* How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 dr0mni 12,436 103 05/17/09 02:49 AM
by Darwinian
* Evolution: Prove it scientifcally and make $250,000
( 1 2 all )		 dblaney 4,042 29 04/27/07 03:22 PM
by SneezingPenis
* The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate
( 1 2 3 all )		 Divided_Sky 5,046 42 10/06/05 05:05 PM
by dr0mni
* Why people believe in evolution despite the fact it is a failed theory with no scientific basis?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 fivepointer 16,212 135 03/30/07 06:13 AM
by aryah
* evolution or creationism?
( 1 2 3 all )		 top 5,478 52 11/17/05 09:19 PM
by Moonshoe
* No Evolution threads allowed.
( 1 2 all )		 sir tripsalot 3,573 29 10/04/02 11:50 PM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,513 topic views. 0 members, 174 guests and 18 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 0.029 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.