Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
Please support our sponsors.


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

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains, USA West Coast Strains   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Evolution
    #2157121 - 12/04/03 01:31 AM (18 years, 2 days ago)



What are your beliefs in regards to evolution? Including the "missing link", and as well what you think we'll most likely evolve into in the couple hundred millenias in the future. (if we still exist)


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinebillster84
fungi-consumi

Registered: 08/19/02
Posts: 97
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2157270 - 12/04/03 02:43 AM (18 years, 2 days ago)

so much to say here....I buy into the 2012 theory for the most part in terms of astrological and societal effects but maybe not the timeline of events. Neuroscience and drastic world economy/social sturucture changes will eventually yield a race of humanoids that is everything we are not, has all the perks we wish we had, and controls his consciousness like we wish we could. How this age will come about - whether through near extinction or an re-information revolution - we know not yet.


--------------------
...in the middle of a world on a fish hook.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 5 months, 27 days
Re: Evolution [Re: billster84]
    #2157490 - 12/04/03 08:43 AM (18 years, 1 day ago)

> and as well what you think we'll most likely evolve into in the couple hundred millenias in the future

I think machines are the next step in human evolution.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblepsilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2157553 - 12/04/03 09:34 AM (18 years, 1 day ago)

BiTek, totally mastery of DNA, the ability to sequence any trait in or out of the genome. Enchanced physical and mental abilities, telepathy, parallel processing brains and technology that grows itself.




Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2157906 - 12/04/03 12:40 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

See my sig


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Evolution [Re: pattern]
    #2157970 - 12/04/03 01:15 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

man = ape + mushroom
God = (man + mushroom)^2


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Evolution [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2158285 - 12/04/03 03:48 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Human Evolution: What is it?
Human evolution is not supported by the fossil evidence. Much of the alleged evidence that filled text books over the last 50 years has now been reclassified or rejected altogether. The missing links are still missing.

Human Evolution: The Legacy of the Fossil Evidence
Human evolution has many issues, including the realities of genetics, biochemistry, design theory, irreducible complexity, DNA structure , and information systems. However, the reality of the human fossil record alone is enough to reject the theory of human evolution all together. Here are just a few of the major problems with the alleged fossil record of the past century:

Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.
Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw.
Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.
Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.
Neandertal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Human Evolution: The Current Tree
Human evolution has its currently fashionable specimens that lead from small ape-like creatures to Homo sapiens. These are examples of the most recent alleged links:

Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.
Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.
Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.

Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find
In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim -- declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.

Human Evolution: The Theory Has No Support in the Fossil Record
Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker that human evolution did not happen at all.

Human-Evolution


The Future of Evolution


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesunyata
nonexistentexistentialist
Registered: 12/26/02
Posts: 133
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2158367 - 12/04/03 04:15 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

:smirk:

Did you know the first of your links (and all of the quoted info) is from this site?

http://www.allaboutgod.com/

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but people might want to be forewarned...

 


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesunyata
nonexistentexistentialist
Registered: 12/26/02
Posts: 133
Re: Evolution [Re: sunyata]
    #2158389 - 12/04/03 04:19 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard. 




:eek: Who knew?

http://www.dna-double-helix.net/ 


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleTODAY
Battletoad
Male

Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,218
Loc: Metropolis City, USA
Re: Evolution [Re: sunyata]
    #2158401 - 12/04/03 04:22 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

nothing will happen in 2012, there is no missing link in human evolution, humans will not be around in 1000 years unless we make some DRASTIC changes in global policy. humans have basically increased production and population to the point where there isn't much further to go and if we go further there will be a mass die-off of humans. we need to make a change in environmental and social policy or else we are done for very soon.

PEACE


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

ca'rouse (k-rouz)
intr.v.
To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Evolution [Re: sunyata]
    #2158504 - 12/04/03 04:55 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Huh? I got the quoted info from " http://www.human--evolution.com " which I found on a google search....I dunno where or how you got "allaboutgod.com" :smirk:


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesunyata
nonexistentexistentialist
Registered: 12/26/02
Posts: 133
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2158510 - 12/04/03 04:57 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Hit the "home" link at the bottom of the page.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
Re: Evolution [Re: sunyata]
    #2158733 - 12/04/03 06:15 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

there are factors in humans right now suggesting ongoing evolution...our baby toes for example are gettingsmaller and smaller as they are no longer used to "hold" things, but to stand on....
Our appendix as well used to play a part in digestion of barks and other matierals no longer in our diet and has no practical application.
Evolution makes sence...alot more so, than a super powerfull, all knowing entity, that gives a fuck enough to make all this and maintain it...


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2158867 - 12/04/03 07:02 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

infidelGOD said:
man = ape + mushroom
God = (man + mushroom)^2





:sun:
 


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Evolution [Re: Azmodeus]
    #2158928 - 12/04/03 07:30 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

and our heads are getting more "bulbous" in the cranium area, and decreasing in jaw-size...which is the reverse of what a cro-magnon would look like, basically. So, give or take a few millenia, I think humans will be much less hairier, bigger heads and longer, or maybe extra fingers for controlling and manipulating buttons for computeroid tasks, hell, maybe even smaller in size as well, cuz evolution tends to change what is "needed" to change...for example, girraffes grew longer necks over evolution to adapt to the environment consisting of high trees with succelent morsels of greenery for the animals to chew on. So, I'm pretty sure that whatever our own evolutionary proccess decides to "change", it'll be based on some certain "need(s)" based on our environment, which undeniably is growing more and more technology-computer based and so on...and also our population is increasing on a planet which unfortunately doesn't increase in size as needed, so I think that possibly, evolution could lift some weight offa our backs if it turned the whole human race into midgets :smirk:
Or maybe we'll be forced to live in the ocean and then evolution will turn us into amphibious creatures, with gills behind our ears to breath underwater with and webbed toes and fingers to swim with.


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineShizpow
Street Samurai

Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 83
Loc: Oregon
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2158975 - 12/04/03 07:48 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

There's a really intriguing scene in "Waking Life" where a guy is talking about evolution, and he starts off by looking at the telescoping down of evolutionary waves. A billion years for life to emerge, 100 million years for hominids, 10,000 for human civilizations to arise, 150 years for the industrial evolution...anyway, he talks about our advances currently with fusion of the brain and technology, which are progressing very nicely, and says that the next evolutionary wave will take place in one generation because of the fact that the humans evolving will no longer be true humans, but "neohumans" as he calls them. They'll have brains smarter than ours because they are augmented with computers, laeding to better insights into future advances and a succeeding generation of even smarter neohumans. This is obviously cyclical in nature and he concludes that at that point, no one knows what will happen because we'll be in the midst of a sort of crecendo of evolution, with a whole new race every generation, magnitudes smarter and more capable than the one before it.

Interesting shit...which is why I plan to have my head vitrified when I die.


--------------------
If you cut a face lengthwise, urinate on it, and trample on it with straw sandles, it is said that the skin will come off. This was heard by the priest Gyojaku when he was in Kyoto. It is information to be treasured.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
Re: Evolution [Re: Seuss]
    #2159002 - 12/04/03 07:58 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> and as well what you think we'll most likely evolve into in the couple hundred millenias in the future

I think machines are the next step in human evolution.




The image does end after all with a machine.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineGreat Scott
Trigger Lover
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/05/03
Posts: 19,797
Loc: Control Grid
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: Evolution [Re: Zahid]
    #2159055 - 12/04/03 08:19 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

natural selection has a huge stake in evolution
does our society cater to natural selection?


--------------------
:thumbup: :thumbdown:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineShizpow
Street Samurai

Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 83
Loc: Oregon
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Evolution [Re: Great Scott]
    #2159069 - 12/04/03 08:26 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Our society actively defeats natural selection. We pour all kinds of money and resources into preserving and sustaining people who wouldn't last 20 minutes on their own. In a society as advanced as ours is, natural selection doesn't play a role at all...except for a slightly detremental one.

As an alalogy, let's just say that if you try to water every weed in the garden, no matter how useless and noxious they are, you'll make growth harder for the useful plants.

But as I've said, I think technology will render natural selection obsolete in the very near term as far as humans are concerned, maybe 500 years or so if we can keep the damned planet alive that long.


--------------------
If you cut a face lengthwise, urinate on it, and trample on it with straw sandles, it is said that the skin will come off. This was heard by the priest Gyojaku when he was in Kyoto. It is information to be treasured.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2159532 - 12/04/03 10:34 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

I think humans will be much less hairier, bigger heads and longer, or maybe extra fingers for controlling and manipulating buttons for computeroid tasks, hell, maybe even smaller in size as well,




I dunno.  I think there may be humans like that but the majority will stay as they are now.  It will be very difficult and unlikely for the entire human race to evolve at the same pace together.  Small pockets of new human species are required to arise first.  Whether they inbreed with all of humanity is questionable.  For example all the hot female/male models would probably breed with themselves like they do now, and would rarely interbreed with your "new humans" who probably would look really ugly with big bald heads and lots of dangly fingers. 

As for humans getting smaller, if they have bigger heads, they will need stronger bodies to support the mass, so smaller bodies would be a major disadvantage.  We'd have to get bigger.  Or there could be super-large-brain dudes with robot suits to support their skulls. Large brains will also require more energy to run, so they'll have to consume more. 

A "historical law" that happens in evolution is that certain species are very succesful at filling a niche, and do not need to evolve at all.  Humans are like that.  Apes are like that.  Many ape species stayed as they are because of this law.  They have no pressure to evolve because they are doing fine in their niche.  Humans don't really have a pressure to evolve yet.

my two cents  :rasta: 


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinebillster84
fungi-consumi

Registered: 08/19/02
Posts: 97
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
Re: Evolution [Re: pattern]
    #2159592 - 12/04/03 10:56 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

that scene in Waking Life is interesting...he's one of my favorite characters. digital and analog communication seamlessly woven together through biotech....possible i think.


--------------------
...in the middle of a world on a fish hook.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Evolution [Re: pattern]
    #2159645 - 12/04/03 11:20 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Well, the idea that inspired my theory of us possibly having larger heads and smaller bodies, longer/extra fingers, etc etc....was the stereotypical image of Aliens...notice UFO abductees always tend to report similar characteristics such as very very large head, with big eyes, and small mouth probably only used for eating as they're advanced enough to communicate telepathicaly, and they have very thin frail bodies, long fingers, for manipulating controls and gizmos and gadgets, etc.


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinegnrm23
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 6,488
Loc: n. e. OH, USSA
Last seen: 1 month, 23 days
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2160618 - 12/05/03 07:24 AM (18 years, 1 day ago)

note:
cromagnon man had a larger cranial capacity then modern man (both are Homo sapiens sapiens); the neandertaler folk were much closer to the slylized brutish cave-man with the low forehead, bulging eyebrow bone, etc...
note 2:
back in darwin's day, most educated people accepted evolution as a fact --- things do change over time --- but it was the "by means of natural selection" that got under the skin of many of the more religiously-influenced critics of his theory...
modern evolution studies examine not just the fossil record, & stuff like haekel's "ontogony recapitulates phylogeny", &cetera, but molecular biology stuff like differences in protein peptide sequences, deviations in mitochondrial dna, genomic dna sequences (e.g. comparing chimpanzee & human dna sequences indicates a 98+% congruence; farther afield in the primates, the % drops - eventually crossing kingdom lines to compare stuff like yeast dna...)
for an interesting look at very early evolutionary happenings, check out margulis & sagan: _microcosmos_


--------------------
old enough to know better
not old enough to care


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
Re: Evolution [Re: Shizpow]
    #2160945 - 12/05/03 11:58 AM (18 years, 19 hours ago)

"We pour all kinds of money and resources into preserving and sustaining people who wouldn't last 20 minutes on their own."

Individuals aren't evolving as much now out of natural selection, societies are.

A society that uses its thinkers, engineers, workers and scientists together in such a way that it can sustain life for all has an evolutionary advantages over a disorganized society.

An invention like glasses: thousands of years ago, people with poor eyesight would probably get eaten pretty quickly. They'd be the first to die off. Nowadays, some of the people who are providing important ideas are people wearing glasses. Due to modern technology, we aren't breeding out some of the easier to deal with medical problems, we're able to evolve past them using technology, which is the product of a society composed of many individuals working separately to acheive common goals.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2160951 - 12/05/03 12:01 PM (18 years, 19 hours ago)

"Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human."

Sources, please.

"Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker that human evolution did not happen at all."

The only people making this claim are creationists. Ask a biologist about how people are generally starting to believe that evolution is false and he'll laugh in your face.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineTimeTraveler
Another

Registered: 11/12/03
Posts: 46
Loc: I'm right here.
Last seen: 16 years, 11 months
Re: Evolution [Re: Phluck]
    #2161539 - 12/05/03 02:56 PM (18 years, 16 hours ago)

My first post here, Hi all.

I didnt read in detail all of your posts, so I apologize if i'm repeating info here, but here goes.

I recently did some research on evolution, and a few books that I read about evolution had some pretty good info about the missing links and ideas that had no actual scientific evidence to back them up.  One point that one author made was that when animals, particulary sea life, appeared on the fossil record in the cambrian era, all of the major classifications of animals that exist even today were apparant in said fossils. There are basically no fossils from the pre-cambrian era, which is a head scratcher for a lot of paleontologists (as of the time the book was written, I could be completely off base, though).

Another good point was that animals of the same species, like frogs for instance, although very similar in bone structure and appearance, all develop differently in the embryo stage.  An experiment involving two similar type frogs illustrated this when they cut out a certain part of the developing embryo(s), and one frog developed without eyelids, whereas the other came out fine.  So this illustrates that although animals may look alike, genetically they are different...but i dunno, again this is all older info, so things could have changed a lot by now.

I think evolution is a real thing, but the idea that all creatures descended from one ancestor or a small group of ancestors (Darwin's "descent with modification" idea) certainly has some holes in it, and a lot of the questions that were unanswered in Darwin's time are still left unanswered today...

My 2C, thanks for reading :smile: 


--------------------
The air is cut with cyanide.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Evolution [Re: Phluck]
    #2161639 - 12/05/03 03:24 PM (18 years, 16 hours ago)

that was a quote from http://www.human--evolution.com/


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleknumb
skull
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/27/01
Posts: 601
Loc: top, bottom, strange, cha...
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2162715 - 12/05/03 09:21 PM (18 years, 10 hours ago)



k


--------------------
----------------------------------------
we hope that you choke


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2163811 - 12/06/03 11:36 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I've watched this thread since it was first posted but decided to let other weigh in before I said anything. Evolution has been a study and a source of fascination for me for a long time. Here is a partial list of books that I own and have read that either deal with it directly or indirectly:

  • Understanding Scientific Reasoning by Ronald N. Giere
  • The Science of God by Gerald L. Schoreder
  • Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
  • One Long Argument; Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought by Ernest Mayr
  • Reinventing Darwin; the Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory by Niles Eldredge
  • Full House; The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin by Stephen J. Gould
  • The Pattern of Evolution by Niles Eldredge
  • Darwin's Black Box; The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe
  • Bergson's Creative Evolution by Henri Bergson
  • Consilience; The Unity of Knowledge; Edward O. Wilson
  • The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
  • Ontogeny and Phylogeny by Stephen J. Gould
  • Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson
  • The Touchstone of Life; Molecular Information Cell Communication and the Foundations of Life by Werner R. Loewenstein
  • Process and Pattern in Evolution by Charlotte J. Avers
  • Rock of Ages; Science and Religion and the Fullness of Life by Stephen J. Gould
  • Conant: Science and Common Sense by James B. Conant
  • Defeating Darwinism by Phillip E. Johnson
  • The Blind Watchmaker; Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins
  • Lucy; The Beginnings of Human Kind by Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey
  • A Moment in Time with Sinosauropteryx by Phillip J. Currie, Eva Koppelhus and Jan Sovak
  • Rationality of Science by W. H. Newton-Smith
  • Unended Quest; An Intellectual Autobiography by Karl Popper
  • Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper
  • The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn
  • The Creation Hypothesis; Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer by J. P. Moreland
  • Mere Creation; Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design by Micheal Behe, David Berlinski, Phillip Johnson, et al
  • Wonderful Life; The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History by Stephen J. Gould
  • Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
  • Origins Reconsidered; In Search of What Makes us Human by Richard Leakey


The failures of modern evolutionary theory are abysmal. And they are acknowledged by scientists from a variety of fields.

Here are two quotes from a molecular biologist:

"The difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates has created chaos in evolutionary thought. The evolutionary community has divided into two camps-those still adhering to the selectionist position, and those rejecting it in favor of the neutralist. The devastating aspect of this controversy is that neither side can adequately account for the constancy of the rate of molecular evolution, yet each side fatally weakens the other. The selectionists wound the neutralists' position by pointing to the disparity in the rates of mutation per unit time, while the neutralists destroy the selectionist position by showing how ludicrous it is to believed that selection would have caused equal rates of divergence in "junk" proteins or along phylogenetic lines so dissimilar of those of man and carp. Both sides win valid points, but in the process the credibility of the molecular clock hypothesis is severely strain and with it the whole paradigm of evolution itself is endangered."

"The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch, was able to provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution cannot be explained in terms of microevolutionary processes, or any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters cannot be dismissed as cranks, CREATIONISTS, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first rate BIOLOGISTS. This is acknowledged by Mayr:

  • The nature and cause of transpecific evolution has been a highly controversial subject during the first half of this century. The proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by natural selection, and that transpecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species. A well-informed minority, however, including such outstanding authorities as the geneticist Goldschimdt, the paleontologist Schindewolf, and the zoologists Jeannel, Cuenot, and Cannon, maintained until the 1950's that neither evolution within species nor geographic speciation could explain the phenomena of "macroevolution", or, as it is better called, transpecific evolution. These authors contended that the origin of new "types" and of new organs could not be explained by the known facts of genetics and systematics."


So, I do not think that man has evolved and neither do I think he will evolve.

If anyone is interested for a complete explanation I suggest they click on TrueOrigins. It is not a religious site but a scientific rebuttal to evolution.

Cheers,

MM


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineElvish
enthusiast
Registered: 10/18/01
Posts: 264
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: Evolution [Re: ]
    #2163847 - 12/06/03 11:55 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

You are all fillaments ov my deviated septum.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: ]
    #2164031 - 12/06/03 01:20 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

The failures of modern evolutionary theory are abysmal.




Really?  Evolutionary theory has been very successful.  On the other hand I'd like to see where creation theory has succeeded, even just once, to scientifically explain anything.  I'll take the "abysmal" evolutionary theory anyday over the alternatives.

I own about half the books on your list by the way.  Good selection.  :wink:

For a counterpoint to MrMushrooms site, check out http://www.talkorigins.org/

I have a Post of the Month there (joke news item that way too many people thought was real): http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr97.html :lol: 


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Evolution [Re: pattern]
    #2164139 - 12/06/03 02:00 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Thanks for replying pattern :smile:

Evolutionary theory has been very successful.

Actually no, it hasn't.  There are interpretations of facts that make it seem successful but that really isn't the case.

I am more than familiar with talkorigins.shit and have read it for about 4 years now on the Internet.  There are many flaws and misleading statements on it.  In fact, there was a debate between talkorigins and trueorigins and trueorigins won the debate.  You can find the dialogue on the trueorigins site.

Pitting evolutionary theory against creationism is like arguing which sum is correct for the equation 2+2, one side says it's 6 and the other side says it's 5.

Both are incorrect.

It is entirely likely that we will never know the mechanisms of life on this planet.

Have you read Denton's book? 


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2164147 - 12/06/03 02:03 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

maybe extra fingers for controlling and manipulating buttons for computeroid tasks
the time needed for the evolution of technology to get rid of buttons will probably be obsolete compared to the time needed to evolve an extra finger


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Evolution [Re: pattern]
    #2164159 - 12/06/03 02:11 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Oh, and here are a few of the deceptions found at talkshit.org (can you tell I have zero respect for that site? :grin:)

TalkOrigins: Deception by Omission

Enjoy! :smile:

MM 


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineViaggio
ChemicalConsumer

Registered: 07/05/03
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: raytrace]
    #2164186 - 12/06/03 02:24 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

i'm very confident that changes in counciousness and society* is our next step in evolution. i mean that in the most vague way possible because the next step is never like the one before it.

example: the 2D reality has zero comprehension of the 3D reality. we're in the same boat...make sense?

*society is a vague term. encompasses economy, government, technology, culture etc.


--------------------
"...yet another in a long series of diversions an attempt to avoid responsibility."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineScarfmeister
Thrill Seeker
Registered: 10/31/02
Posts: 8,127
Loc: The will to power
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: Evolution [Re: ]
    #2164187 - 12/06/03 02:24 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Maybe we cant fill all the holes in evolutionary theory but tell me, if we didn't evolve from the apes where the fuck did we come from. GOD?

Occam's razor my delusional friends.


--------------------
--------------------
We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Evolution [Re: raytrace]
    #2164192 - 12/06/03 02:27 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Time is not a mechanism for change. For six-fingered humans to become prevalent you would need some genetic mutation (it happens - there is a whole family of six-fingered people) and you would need them to become either much more desirable in mating terms than five-fingered humans or have some major survival advantage.

Neither of those things is happening.


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



The proof is in the pudding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineViaggio
ChemicalConsumer

Registered: 07/05/03
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: Swami]
    #2164248 - 12/06/03 02:56 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

"Time is not a mechanism for change." good point, time is just a window for change.

any physical changes during our developement as a species aren't as likely as evolving conciousness and socialness. bigger heads? nah...just better ones.


--------------------
"...yet another in a long series of diversions an attempt to avoid responsibility."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Evolution [Re: Scarfmeister]
    #2165018 - 12/06/03 09:14 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Actually Occam's razor is the last tool any defender of evolution should try to apply.  As the epicycles multiplied when scientists were trying to defend geocentrism Occam's razor was born.

We are in the same position with evolution today with ad hoc hypotheses being mulitplied by the hundreds merely to keep the paradigm alive.

Evolution isn't a simply theory and has become more and more complex as time has passed.  Everything from molecular clocks to panspermia has been postulated in order to keep evolution from falling flat on its face.

A true skeptic would look at the available evidence, and its interpretation, and say, "You've got to be kidding me?!?  :rolleyes:"

The real problem with evolution is the philosophical position it is defending.  Most people don't have a clue what that even is. 


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: ]
    #2165134 - 12/06/03 09:58 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Evolutionary theory has been very successful.

Actually no, it hasn't. 




And I still disagree.  hehe.  For example, computer scientists are using natural selection and genetic algorithms to build advanced artificial intelligence, among other things.  Evolutionary theory is having real world applications, something that creation theory can't claim.

Quote:

I am more than familiar with talkorigins.shit and have read it for about 4 years now on the Internet.  There are many flaws and misleading statements on it.  In fact, there was a debate between talkorigins and trueorigins and trueorigins won the debate.  You can find the dialogue on the trueorigins site.




I prefer TalkOrigins.  Those two sites are diametrically opposed, I can see we lie on the opposite sides of the arguments.

Quote:

Pitting evolutionary theory against creationism is like arguing which sum is correct for the equation 2+2, one side says it's 6 and the other side says it's 5.




Or one side says its 4 and the other side says its 5. :smirk:

Quote:

Both are incorrect.




How can you prove that statement?  Is there a new theory that replaces both evolution and creationism?

Quote:

It is entirely likely that we will never know the mechanisms of life on this planet.




What are you, agnostic?

Quote:

Have you read Denton's book?




No, I've read half a dozen or so anti-Darwin books tho.  So far none has swayed me. 

I suspect that there is alot more to evolution than what traditional Darwinians think.  I dont rule out God and I'm not in the panspermia camp.  I believe humans evolved from psychedelic using ancestors, something that doesn't go over well with academic folk, or even with the TalkOrigins crowd.  I posted my theory there and got a short reply correcting my grammar :lol:.  I think that this belief is not only possible, but likely, and lies within the realm of natural selection.  Ie. Psychedelic apes had more advantages than sober apes. 


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Evolution [Re: pattern]
    #2165325 - 12/06/03 11:14 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I believe humans evolved from psychedelic using ancestors, something that doesn't go over well with academic folk, or even with the TalkOrigins crowd.

It is not a matter of what crowd is for or against it, but can you make a SOLID argument in it's favor other than you like it or think it is a cool idea? McKenna makes an incredibly weak, albeit entertaining, case for it.


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



The proof is in the pudding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Evolution [Re: Swami]
    #2165367 - 12/06/03 11:35 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Swami, I'm curious, what is your own theory/belief regarding this whole matter?


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2165401 - 12/06/03 11:55 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Some parts of evolutionary theory such as natural selection (the fastest antelope is more likely to survive and breed) are obviously true. These ideas have been capitalized in software genetic algorithms and in plant/animal breeding.

Other parts of the theory have gaping holes.

Sharks and ants for example, have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years. This is "explained" by saying that they were already nearly perfectly evolved for survival. This argument falls flat in that any animal at any stage must have adapted quite well else it would not have survived.

Snake venom is a specific nerve poison with no known evolutionary "steps". Variances in saliva PH do not lead to this highly complex molecule. The snake obviously had survived before this change took place, so what was the mechanism of development? Why are not some occasional non-poisonous snakes species found that are heading towards this ability?

A cave in France was sealed by miners in the 1930's (no reference handy - sorry). There were sighted fish living in the cave. When it was reopened in the 1980s, the fish were blind. No big surprise expect that the fish were now born blind! This is Lamarckism not Darwinism. There is no known mechanism in evolutionary theory to explain this. Evolutionists merely say that sight was no longer needed, but cannot state how living in the dark affected the DNA so as to shut off the optical pathways of the newborn.

This are just a few random points.

The creationism vs. Darwinism argument is flawed in general as it assumes only two possible theories of many.


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



The proof is in the pudding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineViaggio
ChemicalConsumer

Registered: 07/05/03
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2165405 - 12/06/03 11:57 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

"I believe humans evolved from psychedelic using ancestors, something that doesn't go over well with academic folk, or even with the TalkOrigins crowd.

It is not a matter of what crowd is for or against it, but can you make a SOLID argument in it's favor other than you like it or think it is a cool idea? McKenna makes an incredibly weak, albeit entertaining, case for it."

belief does not require facts for argument.


--------------------
"...yet another in a long series of diversions an attempt to avoid responsibility."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Evolution [Re: Viaggio]
    #2165419 - 12/07/03 12:09 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

belief does not require facts for argument.

The Greek use of the word argument directly requires logic. Random belief is not logical and hence not useful for any form of rational discussion.

This is what I find so disconcerting. There are a near-infinite number of possible beliefs to choose from. Without a factual or at least a strong hypothetical basis, one could pick any one of them and be almost guaranteed to be completely wrong.


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



The proof is in the pudding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineViaggio
ChemicalConsumer

Registered: 07/05/03
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: Swami]
    #2165456 - 12/07/03 12:27 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

lol, but isn't it possible the meaning of the word argument has evolved?  :wink:

hmm...right or wrong belief?  who cares?  belief shouldn't require proof because it comes from within.  and within cannot be defined, only described.  the great thing about belief is that is is not static.


--------------------
"...yet another in a long series of diversions an attempt to avoid responsibility."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePositronius
playboy

Registered: 11/27/03
Posts: 947
Loc: montreal-vancouver-tokyo
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
Re: Evolution [Re: Viaggio]
    #2165477 - 12/07/03 12:38 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

how does belief come from within? people believe what they are told, or they choose to believe in what is available, belief always has its roots in external information.


--------------------
and you know it like a poet, like....babydoll


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineViaggio
ChemicalConsumer

Registered: 07/05/03
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: Positronius]
    #2165502 - 12/07/03 12:54 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

"how does belief come from within?"

good point. i meant genuine belief as opposed to following instructions via religous institution or some other form of conformity. but genuine belief does not have roots in external sources...though there is surely some influence.


--------------------
"...yet another in a long series of diversions an attempt to avoid responsibility."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Evolution [Re: pattern]
    #2165536 - 12/07/03 01:13 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

For example, computer scientists are using natural selection and genetic algorithms to build advanced artificial intelligence, among other things. Evolutionary theory is having real world applications, something that creation theory can't claim.

The argument isn't between creationism and evolution.  It is whether or not evolution has sufficient evidence properly interpreted to lend itself to a rational mind.

I am curious.  Can you explain, in your own words, what computer programs you are referring to?  Are you referencing Dawkins, or what?  I would like to see it in detail before I post a rebuttal.

Both are incorrect.

How can you prove that statement? Is there a new theory that replaces both evolution and creationism?

No, neither lends itself to a rational mind.  The evidence against evolution is found at TrueOrigins.  I prefer to refer to it rather than explain it myself. 

What are you, agnostic?

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with whether I think evolution is true.  Many Christians think evolution is true and there are atheists that dismiss evolution.  Here I am talking about atheists that teach at the college level and not your common, garden variety atheist.

Have you read Denton's book?

No, I've read half a dozen or so anti-Darwin books tho. So far none has swayed me.

Well, that is an admission of ignorance. (not meant as a flame, of course)  Whether you can be convinced is really beside the point, isn't it?

I appreciate talking with you on this subject.  You are polite and willing to speak about this without flaming.  That's a good rule if someone wants to learn something.  Because some people, like myself, don't discuss serious subjects with those who lack the capability to talk about them without hurling insults.  It simply isn't worth the bother for me. :smile:

So let's get back to the computer thing.  I want a full report.  If this is something as powerful as you suggest it is it is something I haven't heard about.

Cheers,

MM 


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: Swami]
    #2166447 - 12/07/03 02:26 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

It is not a matter of what crowd is for or against it, but can you make a SOLID argument in it's favor other than you like it or think it is a cool idea? McKenna makes an incredibly weak, albeit entertaining, case for it.




McKenna had many ideas, intertwined with each other, but this one does stand out from the rest.  I havent found much written about it, even in Food of the Gods, and I think he was wrong that DNA is directly affected.

As for a SOLID argument, the only such argument would have good evidence behind it, which I have none. 

Some points to consider:

1) There is circumstantial evidence towards it:
- Mushrooms could have easily been consumed in our ancestors diets.  They require no preparation, unlike most psychoactive food.  Just pick one up and eat one.
- Historic evidence of mushroom tribes/rituals.
- DMT occurs endogeounosly in the mind.  This could be related to mushroom consumption since the molecular structure is nearly identical to psilocin.  Humans might have attempted to replicate psilocin, by evolving an internal DMT mechanism. 

2) It might be the best explanation of human evolution:
- The evidence that we evolved from primates is overwhelming, but there isn't a strong theory of how it happened.
- Current theories rely on actions and pressures.  For example: "Apes began needing tools, so they started thinking really hard and evolved bigger brains to make tools."  That doesnt explain how they evolved, it is pure speculation.  On the other hand, mushrooms exist and can be tested.
- Mushrooms and psychoactive plants directly affect the mind, unlike external pressures such as socialization. 

3) Research not yet conducted might show positive results:
- Feeding primates a diet that includes mushrooms could show an improvement in their intelligence.  If true then that would be very strong evidence towards the theory.  Some problems: what species to test (chimps?), what kind of diet (how strong a dose and how often), need a double/blind test (a separate test group that stays sober), etc.

As for Lamarck I definitely think that there is a Lamarckian-type force in evolution.  But I think natural selection is by far the dominant force.

Quote:

Sharks and ants for example, have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years. This is "explained" by saying that they were already nearly perfectly evolved for survival. This argument falls flat in that any animal at any stage must have adapted quite well else it would not have survived.




There are hundreds of species of sharks and ants.  That is evidence that they still evolve.  Its possible that there are no major advantages they could evolve.  They already maxxed out their environmental niche.  Maybe they could have evolved to be smarter, or maybe they needed a special diet for that :wink:

Quote:

Snake venom is a specific nerve poison with no known evolutionary "steps". Variances in saliva PH do not lead to this highly complex molecule. The snake obviously had survived before this change took place, so what was the mechanism of development? Why are not some occasional non-poisonous snakes species found that are heading towards this ability?




Can't answer that one, I don't know anything about snake venom.  However you could try asking on TalkOrigins.  Poisonous snakes dont always have the upper hand.  Poison can be a disadvantage: humans will try to eradicate the deadly snakes and leave the normal snakes alone.

Quote:

No big surprise expect that the fish were now born blind! This is Lamarckism not Darwinism.




It takes energy to use eyes.  As some fish were born with eye mutations, the cave environment favored the fish with no eyes.  They were more efficient and required less food.


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: ]
    #2166450 - 12/07/03 02:31 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

I am curious.  Can you explain, in your own words, what computer programs you are referring to?  Are you referencing Dawkins, or what?  I would like to see it in detail before I post a rebuttal.




Most of the stuff I have is in textbooks.  You can look for "genetic algorithms" or "evolutionary computing" on google to find more.

Genetic Algorithms
http://lancet.mit.edu/~mbwall/presentations/IntroToGAs/

Evolved Behaviour
http://www.cambrianlabs.com/Mattias/Evolved/

NEAT
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kstanley/neat.html

ai.planet
I have to mention this, since I made it! :smile:
It simulates microevolution via natural selection.
http://www.aiplanet.org

Quote:

Have you read Denton's book?

No, I've read half a dozen or so anti-Darwin books tho. So far none has swayed me.

Well, that is an admission of ignorance. (not meant as a flame, of course) 




I am sure there are some books you haven't read too.  But I wouldnt call that ignorance :wink:  On the other hand at least I have read most of what the creationists have to say.  It does get pointless after a while tho, I've picked my side, unless something revolutionary appears I'll stay on it.

ciao! :sun:


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
Re: Evolution [Re: pattern]
    #2167279 - 12/07/03 08:38 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

This guy has a few good articles.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

Something to note:

I don't think anyone in this forum has a complete formal education in biology and everyone here is undoubtably at least slightly misinformed on the latest discoveries. No offence to any of you, but I wouldn't trust you guys to inform me on evolution.

A close family member is a geneticist who seems quite convinced that macroevolution is a very real process. When I ask him about it, he'll speak for a while, and head off on long tangents about comples genetic experiments and studies involving animals and all kinds of things I don't completely understand.

Evolution is a topic that everyone has an opinion on, sometimes even an extensively researched opinon, yet very few have a decent understanding of the science that has been done. One problem is that with today's science, trying to teach anyone about the most important details being worked on today is impossible to do without a background education in the topic. A lot of people are misinformed about these subjects even if they try to keep up to date.

Are there problems with current evolutionary theory? Yes. There are times when it simply seems unlikely, and there are times when it seems totally flawed, but nobody has yet to offer a decent alternative theory, or even present compelling evidence that evolutionary theory is totally untrue.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblemuhurgle
Turtles all theway down

Registered: 10/29/03
Posts: 299
Re: Evolution [Re: ]
    #2167448 - 12/07/03 10:16 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

You list a lot of books, and while you don't specifically state that all of those are dealing with the "failure of evolution", one can easily get that impression. Which is of course totally wrong.

The real problem with evolution is the philosophical position it is defending. Most people don't have a clue what that even is.

What do you mean by this? Should there be a philosophical position behind evolution? Is there some philosophical position it defends that you don't like?

There's nothing worse than "science" made up to support a philosophical belief. Like creationism, or "intelligent design".

There certainly are things that orthodox eveolutionary theory have problems explaining. From there to believing in "intelligent design", is a leap of faith.

It is not a religious site but a scientific rebuttal to evolution.

Sure. Just taking a look at the front page, shows exactly what kind of site this is:

The Law of God (a.k.a. the ?Ten Commandments?). A friendly reminder of our personal, individual guiltiness of sin before a holy God, apart from Whose mercy in the cross of Jesus Christ there is no hope.

Nine Ways to Know that the Gospel of Christ is True (John Piper)?some ?food for thought? for inquiring minds with a hunger for objective meaning in life.


--------------------
"To make this mundane world sublime
Take half a gram of phanerothyme."

Aldous Huxley


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Evolution [Re: pattern]
    #2168039 - 12/08/03 03:59 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Interesting links.

I guess my first answer would be:

And those aren't examples of intelligent design?  I guess those programs programmed themselves.

But for a more thorough treatment of why those programs don't lend any evidence for evolution anyone interested can click on these:

The Problem of Information for Evolution and has Tom Schneider really solved it?

Abstract: In several papers genetic binding sites were analyzed using a Shannon information theory approach.  It was recently[1] claimed that these regulatory sequences could increase information content through evolutionary processes starting from a random DNA sequence, for which a computer simulation was offered as evidence.  However, incorporating neglected cellular realities and using biologically realistic parameter values invalidate this claim.  The net effect over time of random mutations spread throughout genomes is an increase in randomness per gene and decreased functional optimality.  Structurally and quantitatively invalid scenarios characterize such evolutionary simulations as will be demonstrated here.

Timothy Wallace answers questions about GA (Genetic Algorithms) A pretty fascinating read, here's one quote:

"I think it is important to differentiate between a biological phenomenon that is assumed (but by no means proven) to have taken place, and a intelligently designed and implemented development process based essentially on a ?trial and error? algorithm. The ?model? which serves as the basis of the successful GA concept, it seems to me, is one in which solutions and improvements are desired and sought, and which have been formulated from very real, logical, and intelligently designed mechanisms."

Genetic Algorithms: Do they show that evolution works? Direct and to the point.  It looks like your idea just got shredded.  The opening paragraph is revealing and the rest of the article is quite convincing.

"A genetic algorithm (GA) is a computer program that supposedly simulates biological evolution.  GAs have found limited application in generating novel engineering solutions?for example, an electronic circuit that filters out a particular frequency.  GAs use mathematical constructs that parallel mutations (random changes in the variables/coefficients), natural selection (elimination of variations in a circuit, for example, that do not move toward the objective of a response to a particular frequency), and even some type of ?recombination? (as happens in sexual reproduction).  Because of this, some apologists for evolution claim that these programs show that biological evolution can create the information needed to proceed from less complex to more complex organisms (i.e. with more genetic information)."

I have to admit it.  I just  :heartpump: that website. :smile:

Me: Have you read Denton's book?

You: No, I've read half a dozen or so anti-Darwin books tho. So far none has swayed me.

Me: Well, that is an admission of ignorance. (not meant as a flame, of course)

Your comment: I am sure there are some books you haven't read too. But I wouldnt call that ignorance :wink:

Of course it would be ignorance on my part.  People often think that calling someone ignorant or claiming ignorance is a bad thing.  Ignorance merely means lacking knowledge.  If I hadn't read a book I probably wouldn't know, in detail, what it was about.  Would I?

On the other hand at least I have read most of what the creationists have to say.

Well lucky for you Denton isn't a creationist.  He is a molecular biologist and does bonafide scientific research for a living.

It does get pointless after a while tho, I've picked my side, unless something revolutionary appears I'll stay on it.

And while you are waiting for the answer that doesn't come you will stick your head in the sand and believe all the mumbo jumbo "science" has taught you.  Pattern, I have great respect for you and I have truly enjoyed this interchange.  But, to refuse to submit your mind to both sides of an argument is one sure way to remain ignorant of not only the facts, but also the truth.

But hey, to each his own.

:sun:  Dog Ciao


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Evolution [Re: Phluck]
    #2168073 - 12/08/03 04:17 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

That's a pretty good and articulate response Phluck. Thanks for posting it.

I checked out the guy's website and it does seem like a good read. I did see a few problems with it though even with just a cursory glance.

1. He relies solely on genetic evidence for the "apparent" ancestry between humans and the great apes. He has to. Because there isn't any fossil evidence that holds up under close scrutiny.

2. He sites Douglas Theobald's 29 Evidences for Macroevolution from Talkshit.org. Of course Theo doesn't mention anywhere in the article that he article was shredded to pieces by the guys at TrueOrigins. You can view the debate here.

You are entirely correct about one important fact though. None of us should rely on the members here to be convinced one way or the other with regard to this issue. There is plenty of information out there on the Internet to help us make up our minds. I feel, and I hope this isn't too arrogant, that my formal training in biology with a specialty in mycology is enough to help me decide intelligently which side of the argument is the better one.

And finally, it really doesn't matter if there is a rational alternative to evolution theory. If it is wrong and we understand enough of the facts that make it wrong, that is enough.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Evolution [Re: muhurgle]
    #2168081 - 12/08/03 04:27 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

We probably don't have much to talk about.

All science has a philosophical foundation.  You should do some reading on this.  Check out my list of books.  There are quite a few that are directly related to that.

It is not a religious site but a scientific rebuttal to evolution.

Sure. Just taking a look at the front page, shows exactly what kind of site this is:

Yes, you found something I didn't see.  And managed to "poison the well" at the same time (that's a term from logic).  The little gems were found on the front page all right.

Let's see how long the page is and where they were:

  PBS?s Evolution Show:
? Getting The Facts Straight  ?Who let the dogma out??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What?s New:
? Radiometric Dating as ?proof?  of evolution faces new challeng-  es from empirical science. See  briefs from AIG and ICR.
? Creationism.com merits no  reading past first sentence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About TrueOrigin:
? TrueOrigin FAQ  Q&A 

his site was established to provide an intellectually honest response to the claims of evolutionism?s proponents (including, but not limited to, the likes of the ?Talk.Origins? newsgroup and website).  Most advocates of evolutionism subscribe to a set of naturalistic and mechanistic?if not humanistic?philosophical presuppositions, inevitably adding a fundamentalist bias to their perspective.  This fact (which they zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists? credibility, disqualifying them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science.  Much of the material published by evolutionists embodies precisely such a pseudo-scientific bias, often articulated under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced study.
The contributions posted at this site give expression to the ?other side??dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:

1.  The myth that today?s heavily popularized beliefs about macroevolution find ?overwhelming? or unequivocal support in the data of empirical science
2.  The myth that the alternative?biblical creation?somehow fails to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data


The question of origins is largely a matter of history?not the domain of applied science.  Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one?s worldview does indeed play heavily on one?s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement?the three immutable elements of the scientific method?may be employed.  Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive ?scientific? status for their popularized beliefs, while curtly dismissing (if not angrily deriding) all doubters, and spurning Darwin?s advice.

This site is one answer to such unreasonable?and unscientific?practices...




   

    ?Talk.Origins Archive? Rebuttals

TOP

29 ?Evidences? for Macroevolution (Ashby Camp)?a thorough critique of Douglas Theobald?s TalkOrigins essay citing a series of alleged ?predictions? for evolution.
Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions About Evolution (T. Wallace)?a response to a nearly fact-free TalkOrigins essay of a similar title by Mark Isaak.
Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism (T. Wallace)?a response to Frank Steiger?s TalkOrigins essays feigning immunity for evolutionism from thermodynamic absolutes.
Problems with a Global Flood? (Jonathan Sarfati)?a rebuttal of Mark Isaak?s use of half-baked exegesis and presuppositional bigotry to ?discredit the flood hypothesis?.
A Scientific Critique of Evolution (Lee Spetner)?a response to Dr. Edward Max?s TalkOrigins criticisms of the position articulated in Spetner?s book, Not By Chance.
A Continuation of Spetner v. Max (Lee Spetner)?response and commentary by Spetner on Ed Max?s additional counter-claims and criticisms at TalkOrigins.
The Moon is Still Young (Malcolm Bowden?s)?rebuttal of Tim Thompson?s attempted dismissal of young age arguments involving the earth-moon system.
A Theory of Creation (T. Wallace)?answering the vacuous (but popular, at TalkOrigins) claim that no empirically relevant creationary theory exists.
Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission (Jorge Fernandez)?documents how Talk.Origins avoids significant details through conspicuous omission and oversimplification.
    Guest Articles on Related Topics

TOP

      GEOLOGY & RADIOMETRIC DATING
Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy (Carl Froede & John Reed)?uses evidence from the Gulf of Mexico to examine various approaches to stratigraphy within the creation model.
Geology and the Young Earth (Tas Walker)?answers several popular arguments raised against a young earth?even by so-called ?Bible-believing? bibliosceptics.
The Geologic Column: Does It Exist? (John Woodmorappe)?examines the credibility of the much-publicized ?geologic column? (and why it always seems to look bigger in print!).
Ghost Craters in the Sky (Helen Fryman)?Lunar ?geology? falls far short of supporting evolutionists? belief in a 4.5 billion year old moon. (Condensed from a 1998 presentation by Dr. Danny Faulkner.)
The Dating Game (David Plaisted)?examines the facts behind radiometric (& other) dating methods cited by evolutionists to ?prove? their million-year scenarios.
National Geographic joins the Dating Game (John Woodmorappe)? documents the popular-level periodical?s most recent effort to blur the distinction between science and evolutionary dogma.
      BIOLOGY
B-Cell Maturation: An Unsuitable Analogy for Neo-Darwinian Theory (Royal Truman)?demonstrates in detail why the fine tuning of antibodies in vertebrates is not analogous to Neo-Darwinian theory (as claimed by some evolutionists), and therefore adds no credibility to Neo-Darwinian theory.
Critical Characteristics and the Irreducible Knee Joint (Stuart Burgess)?demonstrates that the knee could not have evolved but must have been created as a fully functioning limb joint from the beginning of its existence.
Is the Inverted Retina Really ?Bad Design?? (Peter W.V. Gurney)?reveals significant details commonly ?overlooked? by skeptics who cite the human retina as ?evidence? against the Creator, and (therefore) for evolution.
Origin of Life: Instability of Building Blocks (Jonathan Sarfati)?demonstrates that producing a few chemical ?building blocks? lends far less credibility to the ?naturalistic origin of life? (abiogenesis) hypothesis than popularly imagined.
Hydrothermal Origin of Life? (Jonathan Sarfati)?demonstrates the logistical weaknesses in the popularly touted hypothesis that life could have arisen in a submarine hydrothermal vent.
Why Abiogenesis is Impossible (Jerry Bergman)?Empirical science fails to lend credibility to the popular evolutionary assumption that life could have arisen as a product of purely natural processes.
ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell (Jerry Bergman)?discusses this intricate and complex energy storage mechanism, necessary in its entirety for even the ?simplest? form of life to survive.
Did God Make Pathogenic Viruses? (Jerry Bergman)?explores in detail the function and design of viruses in nature.
Second Thoughts About Peppered Moths (Jonathan Wells)?The classical story of evolution by natural selection needs revising.
Homology in Biology?A Problem for Naturalistic Science (Jonathan Wells)?shows how without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility deniable only on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions.
Unseating Naturalism: Recent Insights from Developmental Biology (Jonathan Wells)?The evidence produced in developmental biology (embryology) does little?if anything?to support Darwinian claims regarding homology and recapitulation.
Pseudogenes: Are They Non-Functional? (Pierre Jerlstr?m)?A synopsis of John Woodmorappe?s recent essay showing how testable and repeatable science is displacing the evolutionary concepts that pseudogenes are nonfunctional and can be used in establishing primate phylogenies.
Hox (Homeobox) Genes?Evolution?s Saviour? (Don Batten)?Early acclaimed only as evidence in support of evolution, subsequent research has revealed these genes to yield far less hope than evolutionists initially thought.
      INFORMATION THEORY
The Problem of Information (Royal Truman)?examines Richard Dawkins? efforts (& failure) to furnish a plausible evolutionary accounting of the origin of genetic information.
Has Tom Schneider Really Solved It? (Royal Truman)?thoroughly dismantles Schneider?s recent attempt at diffusing evolutionary theory?s failure to account for information.  (A rather technical?but worthwhile?read.)
Genetic Algorithms?Do They Show that Evolution Works? (Don Batten)?explains why GAs are not viable evidence in favor of evolution.
      PALEONTOLOGY
The Overselling of Whale Evolution (Ashby Camp)?suggests that the fossil evidence for the land mammal-to-whale transition is not persuasive, let alone conclusive.
National Geographic?s Whale Fantasy (Harun Yahya)?reveals how the popular ?science? magazine used more dogma than data to tell another evolution tale.
On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds (Ashby Camp)?examines the fossil evidence vis-?-vis the ever popular dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary scenario.
Smithsonian criticizes National Geographic?s Dino-to-Bird Claims in an Open Letter, revealing the lack of consensus on the matter among scientists, despite National Geographic?s sensationalistic ?propagandizing?.
Reappraising the ?Crown Jewel? (Ashby Camp)?shows that the evidence for the alleged ?reptile-to-mammal transition? (frequently cited as proof of evolution) is much weaker than evolutionists would have one believe.
The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470 (A.W. Mehlert)?Early enthusiasm over this ?human-like? find has been quietly dissipated by new bone-scanning technology, skull 1470 now appearing to be that of an australopithecine.
      ASTRONOMY
The Dubious Apologetics of Hugh Ross (Danny Faulkner)?a PhD astronomer and university professor examines the ?science? and Scriptural approach used by Ross.
The Moon: The Light that Rules the Night (Jonathan Sarfati)?a treatment of the earth-moon system and its implications for the creation-evolution debate.
      GENERAL
?Scientific? American ?Refutes? Creation (T. Wallace)?Commentary on the latest sophomoric scholarship and bigotry invoked by a pillar of American ?mainstream science?.
Kansas prompts Anti-Christian Reactionary Propaganda?Paul Ackerman, Ph.D., Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Linda Holloway, and John Altevogt tell the truth about the Kansas School Board?s decision (well, somebody has to!).
Who?s Really Pushing Bad Science? (Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.)?responds to L.S. Lerner?s essay entitled ?Good Science, Bad Science? in which Lerner?s thinly veiled prejudice sadly compels him to confuse the two.
High Priest of Evolution Reveals His Religion (Gary L. Achtemeier)?cites some likely causes for Stephen J. Gould?s recent abandonment of his former masquerade concerning religion and science.
Population Polls on Creation in Public Schools (Jerry Bergman)?presents data from a broad series of polls concerning public schools and the origins controversy.
Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? (David Buckna)?contests a popular dishonest claims among many vocal evolutionists.
Does the Bible say Earth is Flat? (J.P. Holding)?challenges Paul H. Seely?s arbitrary (and erroneous) use of equivocal biblical language in claiming that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat.
The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship (Curt Sewell)?presents the ?tablet theory? concerning the origin of the written record of Genesis, affirming biblical reliability and man?s inherent literary nature.
Creationism (Helen Fryman)?a brief, but informative treatment of the myth that the Creation/Creator concept is foreign to all but the Christian worldview.
Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust (Jerry Bergman)?examines the links between the ?science? of Darwinism and practice and ideology of Nazi racism.
    Book Reviews & Bibliographies

TOP

      Books by EVOLUTIONISTS
Climbing Mount Improbable (Jonathan Sarfati)?examines Richard Dawkins? book defending the probability of evolution.
Up a River Without a Paddle (Raymond Bohlin)?takes a close look at Richard Dawkins? book ?River Out of Eden.?
Tower Babble (T. Wallace)?response to Eugenie Scott?s review of Robert Pennock?s book, Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism.
      Books by NON-EVOLUTIONISTS
Not By Chance (Carl Wieland)?review of biophysicist Lee Spetner?s book of the same title.
Not By Chance (Hansruedi Stutz)?review of biophysicist Lee Spetner?s book of the same title. (German text)
      Books by ?COMPROMISING? CREATIONISTS
Genesis Questioned (Jonathan Sarfati)?reviews Hugh Ross?s latest published effort at placing erroneous ?science? above infallible Scripture.
The Battle of Beginnings (Carl Wieland)?review of Del Ratzsch?s book analyzing the evolution/creation issue for Christians.
      Books by CREATIONISTS
The Answers Book (T. Wallace)?review of the new & improved book in which Ham, Sarfati, Wieland, and Batten relate the biblical record to empirical science in connection with ?the 20 most-asked questions? on the subject.
Creation Compromises (T. Wallace)?review of Dr. Bert Thompson?s book thoroughly documenting?and refuting?misguided efforts at compromising biblical integrity with unsubstantiated claims of ?science?.
The Biotic Message (Don Batten)?a review of Walter ReMine?s book claiming the unity in biology and the pattern of diversity defies any consistent naturalistic explanation.
Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium (T. Wallace)?review of Ken Ham?s newest statement on the importance of a literal Genesis to Christian doctrine & evangelism.
Refuting Evolution (T. Wallace)?review of Dr. Sarfati?s response to the National Academy of Sciences? book that advocates the teaching of evolution exclusively as ?science? in the classroom.
 
Bibliographies of selected non-evolutionist print publications dealing with origins-related matters for those interested in further reading off-line.
    Creationists Answer Their Detractors

TOP

John Woodmorappe answers Glenn R. Morton?s persistent misuse of Woodmorappe?s list of discrepant isotopic dates.
Joe Meert?s Manipulation and smearing of Walt Brown?s straightforward debate challenge, documented by Brown and the CSC.
A Brief Response to Several Anti-Creationist Books (Don Batten)?diffuses some common myths and misinformation found in recent popular anti-creation literature.
Dr. Royal Truman answers Dr. Mark Kluge?s criticism of Truman?s essay on Dawkins? lack of a plausible evolutionary genetic information source.
Ian Taylor answers Don Lindsay?s apparently hasty and simplistic criticism of Taylor?s book ?In the Minds of Men?.
Ian Taylor answers TalkOrigins multiple newsgroup postings critical of Taylor?s book ?In the Minds of Men?.
Barry Setterfield answers Robert Day?s 1997 criticism of Setterfield?s work in the realm of c-decay (posted at Talk.Origins).
Pseudonyms: A Long, Honorable Tradition in which John Woodmorappe succinctly disposes of a popular evolutionist red herring via documented historical facts.
Dr. Andrew Snelling answers Dr. Alex Ritchie, putting a contrived and excessive ?double identity? accusation into reasonable perspective.
Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams, exposing a willfully ignorant brand of ?skepticism? that fails to question its own arbitrary assumptions.
Russell Humphreys answers Various Critics in a series of predominantly technical PDF files downloadable from this site.
Russell Humphreys answers Thompson, Schimmrich, et al., and the caliber of anti-creationist ?scholarship? that relied on errors to ?discredit? his work.
Russell Humphreys challenges Hugh Ross in a brief letter questioning some claims made by Ross in his newsletter.
Jack Cuozzo answers Colin Groves in a response to Groves? critical review of Cuozzo?s book, ?Buried Alive?.
Jonathan Sarfati critiques John Stear?s ?No Answers in Genesis? website and the skeptics featured there.
Darwin?s Black Box (Michael Behe)?a response by the author to TalkOrigins newsgroup posts regarding his book.
Behe answers Various Critics (Michael Behe)?a response to a number of attempts at discrediting his position, as well as the revealing documentation of his experience with the ?peer-reviewed? editorial process.
Ashby Camp answers Douglas Theobald ?After Ashby Camp published his critique of Douglas Theobald?s ?29 Evidences for Macroevolution? TalkOrigins article, Dr. Theobald published a lengthy and accusatory response to Part 1 of Mr. Camp?s article.  In this reply, Mr. Camp adeptly answers Dr. Theobald?s accusations.
Wallace answers Schneider (T. Wallace)?a response to Schneider?s critical ?summary? of their earlier exchange on thermodynamics, etc.
Wallace answers Duck (T. Wallace)?a response to the ?critique? by Wayne Duck of Wallace?s rebuttal of the TalkOrigins ?Five Misconceptions? FAQ.
    Beyond the Limits of Science

TOP

The Law of God (a.k.a. the ?Ten Commandments?). A friendly reminder of our personal, individual guiltiness of sin before a holy God, apart from Whose mercy in the cross of Jesus Christ there is no hope.
Nine Ways to Know that the Gospel of Christ is True (John Piper)?some ?food for thought? for inquiring minds with a hunger for objective meaning in life.


Here ^^^^  Is it any wonder I didn't see them?  Obviously you took a course in quote mining aka quoting out of context.

You made the readers here think it was strictly a Creationist site.

In short, I don't think we need to correspond.  Thanks for exposing who and what you are.

Good day. :smile:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFrog
Warrior
Female User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 4,284
Loc: The Zero Point Field
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Evolution [Re: ]
    #2168088 - 12/08/03 04:33 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

*Ouch*


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: Evolution [Re: Swami]
    #2168435 - 12/08/03 09:27 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Time is not a mechanism for change. For six-fingered humans to become prevalent you would need some genetic mutation (it happens - there is a whole family of six-fingered people) and you would need them to become either much more desirable in mating terms than five-fingered humans or have some major survival advantage.


The way I understood Scorpivo is that his hypothesis assumes that the use of technologically advanced devices (such as computers) will act as an environmental pressure exerted on humans, that will exclude from the gene pool the people that are unable to use machinery, while providing the people that are most skilful in operating button-interfaced machines with a survival advantage (they will get jobs easier than the rest). Then you have to assume that people with more fingers are more skilful in operating machinery. However, even then, it is not that simple and it might be that these people are not successful in mating?

Anyway, what I wanted to point out is that even if evolution was going towards this finger-increasing ?solution? (by selecting the individuals that have been randomly mutated to have more fingers), the time that will be needed for the change to be that widespread for the humans to be considered a six-fingered species, will likely be loooong, given the time-scale that evolution is operating on (you need generations over generations until the sixers take over). During this time-frame the accelerated technological evolution (with the term used not in the Darwinian sense) will most likely come up with ?buttonless? solutions for the interfacing of devices, thus eliminating the survival advantage, and pushing evolution on a different route (which mathematically speaking is not a line but a multi-dimensional hyper-plane).


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblemuhurgle
Turtles all theway down

Registered: 10/29/03
Posts: 299
Re: Evolution [Re: ]
    #2168449 - 12/08/03 09:38 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

All science has a philosophical foundation. You should do some reading on this. Check out my list of books. There are quite a few that are directly related to that.

Hm. I've read Popper and Kuhn, and written a paper on them once. Yes, science needs to agree on what the scientific method constitutes. This is called the philosophy of science. This has got nothing to do with the worldview of scientists otherwise. If you start out with a worldview (like a belief in god) and try to support this worldview with your science, that science is basically flawed.

Yes, you found something I didn't see. And managed to "poison the well" at the same time (that's a term from logic).

Hehe. I unfairly discredited your source since I pointed out that your statement "It is not a religious site but a scientific rebuttal to evolution" was obviously false?

While we speak of logical fallacies, my first post was pointing out that your original argument was nothing but appeal to false authority. You list a lot of books which you have read, most of which does not support your claim that "The failures of modern evolutionary theory are abysmal". Weak and fallacious.

You made the readers here think it was strictly a Creationist site.

I quoted the front page. It's not like I dug deep and found an obscure article. If they don't want to appear as creationists, then perhaps they shouldn't quote the bible on the frontpage of their "science" site.

In short, I don't think we need to correspond. Thanks for exposing who and what you are.

All I did was point out that your statement was patently false. Either you hadn't even skimmed the front page of the site that you so much recommended, or you were lying. If you can't handle that, then maybe you should do some more research in the future.

And what does that make me? Please do elaborate.


Edited by muhurgle (12/08/03 10:07 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: Evolution [Re: ]
    #2168759 - 12/08/03 12:40 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

And those aren't examples of intelligent design? I guess those programs programmed themselves.




Well of course they are intelligent design.  The guys who made those programs are geniuses :smile:

I see what you mean tho.  Its very obvious that in many cases, a creator started the simulation with a desired goal.  However, it also shows that the creator doesn't have to maintain the simulation, for new outcomes to arise. 

For example: On AIPlanet, I added "evolving trees".  These are simple virtual plants that have simple virtual DNA.  They reproduce by dropping fruits, these fruits contain seeds, which in turn grow into new trees, if there is enough water.  One of their DNA values is "bounce".  As the tree produces each new fruit, the DNA values are randomly mutated a small amount.  Take the case of trees living in a valley surrounded by mountains.  Their fruit is bouncy, and they will bounce off the mountains and back down into the valley. 

Over time, some trees may evolve fruit that is "sticky" as opposed to bouncy.  This fruit will stick to the side of the mountain.  The seed will appear after the fruit rots and a new tree grows on the mountainside.  Eventually the new sticky trees will come to live on top of the mountain, where the bouncy trees could never live. Now, a creationist programmer would just create bouncy and sticky trees to start with, but thats not the way I think. :wink: You can witness this for yourself, and more, all for free if your computer can run AI Planet.  I have even provided the source code for free (OpenSource).

If a simple computer program can demonstrate the very basic concepts of micro-evolution and natural selection, then in my mind it is reasonable to believe that nature, which is far more complex, could achieve macro-evolution.

These programs are just one piece of evidence.  They show that to solve the problems in question, the designer used evolution. The flaw is that the most they can ultimately prove is that a God-like creator used evolution as a tool.  We can never remove or deny the human influence in any computer simulation.

Now before you jump all over me, I have read all your links, and am still convinced of my stance. :tongue:

Quote:

And while you are waiting for the answer that doesn't come you will stick your head in the sand and believe all the mumbo jumbo "science" has taught you. Pattern, I have great respect for you and I have truly enjoyed this interchange. But, to refuse to submit your mind to both sides of an argument is one sure way to remain ignorant of not only the facts, but also the truth.




I'm not refusing.  It is just no longer in my interests to debate evolution vs creationism.  I've had my fill of that in the past, it is WAY too time consuming, so I made a promise with myself not to get involved in endless debates.  If someone comes along with a viable alternative to evolution, then I'd be more than willing to hear it and reconsider my stance, but I don't consider creationism to be viable.  I also have too much respect for you to try to convince you of my beliefs.  Thats why I love the Shroomery... we all get along even though we share many different and sometimes opposing ideas.

:sun:


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesunyata
nonexistentexistentialist
Registered: 12/26/02
Posts: 133
Re: Evolution [Re: pattern]
    #2169154 - 12/08/03 04:39 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Oy. That talkorigins.com site is just filled with creationist drivel. I don't understand how Mr Mushrooms ever thought it could pass for a non-religious, scientific website. Alzheimer's setting in maybe?  :smirk:

Here's just a sample (more articles from the front page, about two-thirds of the way down):

Quote:

GENERAL
?Scientific? American ?Refutes? Creation (T. Wallace)?Commentary on the latest sophomoric scholarship and bigotry invoked by a pillar of American ?mainstream science?.
Kansas prompts Anti-Christian Reactionary Propaganda ?Paul Ackerman, Ph.D., Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Linda Holloway, and John Altevogt tell the truth about the Kansas School Board?s decision (well, somebody has to!).
Who?s Really Pushing Bad Science? (Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.)?responds to L.S. Lerner?s essay entitled ?Good Science, Bad Science? in which Lerner?s thinly veiled prejudice sadly compels him to confuse the two.
High Priest of Evolution Reveals His Religion (Gary L. Achtemeier)?cites some likely causes for Stephen J. Gould?s recent abandonment of his former masquerade concerning religion and science.
Population Polls on Creation in Public Schools (Jerry Bergman)?presents data from a broad series of polls concerning public schools and the origins controversy.
Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? (David Buckna)?contests a popular dishonest claims among many vocal evolutionists.
Does the Bible say Earth is Flat? (J.P. Holding)?challenges Paul H. Seely?s arbitrary (and erroneous) use of equivocal biblical language in claiming that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat.
The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship (Curt Sewell)?presents the ?tablet theory? concerning the origin of the written record of Genesis, affirming biblical reliability and man?s inherent literary nature.
Creationism (Helen Fryman)?a brief, but informative treatment of the myth that the Creation/Creator concept is foreign to all but the Christian worldview.
Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust (Jerry Bergman)?examines the links between the ?science? of Darwinism and practice and ideology of Nazi racism.





Yeah, that's some great science writing going on there. Now I am not going to bother weighing in on the alleged evidence against evolutionary theory; just wanted to point out that this site clearly has a very specific agenda, and is just as reliable as Scorpio's or whatever his name is allaboutgod.com link. IMO people should generally try to be more careful with the claims to authoritative sources they toss around.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Evolution [Re: pattern]
    #2169255 - 12/08/03 05:34 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I'll just make this answer brief.

I know what you mean about arguing endlessly about this subject. I have spent countless hours debating and arguing this on several different message boards. In fact, most of the other message boards I particiapted in had their focus on evolution. At one, I argued with about 20 opponents simutaneously for about 9 months.

In the end, they choose to believe what they did against the findings of fact and the weight of the evidence.

Many people see this argument in terms of creationism versus evolution. It isn't. It is about whether evolution, as a historical fact, is correct. The fact that some people who believe in a personal Creator have uncovered or discovered facts that blow the theory apart has little bearing on what they say.

When the fossil evidence commends itself to GA's I will change my view. Until then I remain open to new evidence, honestly introduced, to change my mind.

To date I haven't seen any.

This is my final post on this subject in this thread.

Nice discussing this with you.

PS: I wrote this before sunyata's post but the server crashed again. The information is out there for those who have "ears to hear".

Cheers,

MM


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains, USA West Coast Strains   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The evolution of human and technology... MOTH 1,055 11 02/24/05 11:13 AM
by CJay
* Christian website on evolution
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 3,772 54 01/18/05 10:48 PM
by vampirism
* Drugs and Technicity: A Heideggerian Inquiry into the Evolution of Drug Use Lakefingers 1,551 5 06/04/06 06:26 AM
by Lakefingers
* change and the rapid evolution of humaninty...
( 1 2 3 all )
Smack31 5,301 57 09/25/02 06:27 PM
by shii-tan
* The Seven Steps of Human Evolution
( 1 2 3 all )
ShroomismM
5,887 42 05/23/09 01:39 PM
by OrgoneConclusion
* The Seven Steps of Human Evolution
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 4,860 20 01/22/03 10:54 AM
by Shroomism
* Seven Steps of Human Evolution
ShroomismM
1,750 19 01/11/05 09:33 PM
by Shroomism
* Why evolution isn't a scientific theory.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 )
Mr. Mushrooms 13,464 267 04/20/09 05:22 PM
by zouden

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
8,511 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.052 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.