board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Back to the dark ages

Post Reply   Page 3 of 22  [ 438 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 522 »
Author Message
Fixer
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:34 pm
The Man who Knows his Tools
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 10:08 pm
Location: Near Tallahassee, Florida
 
Cerin wrote:
Quote:
The theory of "evolution" ... is a misnomer. Darwin did not use this word for his theory. His theory is the theory of "natural selection."
And does this theory of 'natural selection' lead to the notion that all species evolved from simpler life forms? Because that is the idea I think most people are referring to when they talk about teaching 'evolution'.
You are REALLY stuck on this 'lower life form' business. Try changing your terminology a bit.

The origins of humanity cannot be proven by science. Period. The origins of humanity are not observable. We can make speculative guesses about how human beings came about, and use those as theories against which hypotheses can be made, but it can never be proven using scientific method that humans came from anything other than humans.

The CURRENT theory is that human being came from a similar ancestor to chimpanzees or something (monkeys? I dunno). There are scientists working to DISPROVE this theory, not prove it. They attempt to disprove it by collecting evidence of historical migration patterns, body structures, DNA analysis (when we can get it), and other information. So far, no one has been able to disprove that humans came from this common ancestor, although they HAVE managed to narrow down a few branches from that family tree we DIDN'T come from. Now, where did this common ancestor come from? Beats the hell out of anyone. They have theories for it, though, and are trying to disprove those too.

For people to suddenly stand up and go, "We know the answer," (as many intelligent design people seem to be doing) is a bunch of bullshit. They don't KNOW anything, they believe it. They have faith. Bully for them. They have faith in something, but very few have faith in them or their faith (because it isn't a theory because you can't prove it wrong). Scientists want to prove something wrong and what they are offering cannot be proven wrong any more than it can be proven right so please pardon scientists if they ignore the inappropriately named intelligent designers and go back to doing science while the preachers go back to preaching whatever it is they believe. I hear the giant spaghetti monster is big these days.

_________________

[ img ]

The best measure of our accomplishments in life is not what goods we have accumulated or the recognition gained from actions we have performed, but what we leave for others who choose to follow the path we made for them.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:43 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin--

I'm sorry, but your analogy is deeply flawed, unless you are referring to intelligent design supporters when you describe the person with the paper cup airplane.

Dammit, I'm letting this hole suck me in again. :( I really have to stop talking about this now, while I still like people.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:45 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
Fixer, having tussled with Cerin and others on this topic many times, I can tell you that you are wasting your time. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Wearing those blinders is comforting. And the comfort endows the wearer with a peculiar mindset, one that views Humans as special to "creation" and somehow aside from the rules of law.

There are two fundamental problems: one is the profound, I might even say deliberate, misunderstanding of what a theory IS.

Second is the equally profoundly mistaken assertion that science, specifically in the case of The Theory of Evolution, is a kind of "faith" and that data which do not "fit" are discarded or ignored by the "true believers" in Evolution.

These appear to be the immovable rocks in the path of understanding.

Of course, we must not forget that many such rocks existed in the past and most have been dynamited from the road by the explosion of knowledge.

Man, I like to mix my metaphors.


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:46 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Cerin, just go read this thread:

http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?t=25837

It'll answer everything!

;)

(that was a joke, in case it wasn't clear...this thread just brings back an awful lot o' memories :D)


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:52 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Primula_Baggins wrote:
No reputable biologist that I have ever heard of disputes the essentials.
And do those essentials include the idea that the species we see today (including ourselves) evolved from simpler life forms?

Fixer wrote:
You are REALLY stuck on this 'lower life form' business. Try changing your terminology a bit.
Well, I said 'simpler' there. What I want to know is, does this theory posit that the species we see today (including ourselves) evolved from things like single-celled organisms? Is there something objectionable about asking that question? This is the idea that I believe people object to having taught as fact.

Quote:
The CURRENT theory is that human being came from a similar ancestor to chimpanzees or something (monkeys? I dunno).
And that those came from something less complex, and back and back to something very simple?

Btw, as far as I know there is no one in this thread supporting the idea that intelligent design should be taught as science.

(Because an hypothesis can't be disproven doesn't strike me as a very good reason to believe it.)

Axordil wrote:
I'm sorry, but your analogy is deeply flawed, unless you are referring to intelligent design supporters when you describe the person with the paper cup airplane.
I'm not talking about intelligent design supporters at all. I'm talking about people who think the theory that life forms as we know them today evolved from simpler organisms is unconvincing and unsatisfactory.

Sorry talking about this gets you down. :(


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:52 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
vison wrote:
Mummpizz wrote:
Btw. wasn't Kansas the state that wanted to fix the number "Pi" in a simplified form by 3,15 only, omitting the long tail of numbers that follow the original 3,146… ?
I read that it was Texas. So who knows?
Snopes knows: http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm
Quote:
Though the claim about the Alabama state legislature is pure nonsense, it is similar to an event that happened more than a century ago. In 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a measure redefining the area of a circle and the value of pi. (House Bill no. 246, introduced by Rep. Taylor I. Record.) The bill died in the state Senate.


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:53 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Axordil wrote:
Quote:
not the collective opinion of enough scientists to call it a Theory.
If a theory can't be demonstrated to be untrue, it isn't science. Or positively: a theory is science if and only if it could possibly be demonstrated to be untrue. Intelligent design cannot be demonstrated to be untrue, therefore, it isn't science. Evolution can be demonstrated (hypothetically) to be untrue, therefore, it is science.

All this is part and parcel of the scientific method, which is a meaningless exercize anyway if you don't have examples from the history of science, past and current, to work with.
I'm not going to repeat all the arguments I've made in the past, but there are two components to evolution. The first is what we see, can experiment with, and what happens as we go forward in time. This is science, it is the scientific method. The second is that this mechanism of biology explains the origins of mankind. This is not science. It is history, and however much science is used to make our guesses about that history more accurate, those guesses are NOT science.

The basis for historical fact is quite different than for scientific fact. History is inherantly unknowable, because we weren't there. Therefore we rely on what has been written, and what we can observe. However, if things are not spelled out for us, the consensus is, what we have to do is guess, and support that guess with evidence while we can never "know." Perhaps using science to increase what we can see and the accuracy of our guesses.

What people here are saying about historical evolution and that it is a Scientific Theory is the opposite of that. Science works on the assumption that a guess is right until proven wrong. In other words, that we CAN explain the universe, we just have to find out how. In an experimental sense, this works, because we can guess, and "know" that something is right because it makes sense with the data we have... until someone proves it's wrong, and then we have to guess again.

With historical evolution then, we have two ways to look at it... as history, which is a guess that needs to be supported with evidence, or science, which is a Theory, that must be as true as we can know until proven wrong.

Do you see the inherent conflict? The Bible presents a history of the world, and throughout our history, we have looked for evidence to support the guesses about that history. There's plenty of it, and it's all fascinating. The Theory of Evolution comes along and says, "Our guesses about history are scientific, therefore it is correct until someone proves it wrong."

History declares itself unknown except for guesses. Evolution declares itself known until you can prove otherwise. History is not science, but Evolutionary historians claim to be science to try and make their guesses seem "right until you prove me wrong." Where other historians just accept that it can't always be known, as much as we would like to.


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:57 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Quote:
What I want to know is, does this theory posit that the species we see today (including ourselves) evolved from things like single-celled organisms? Is there something objectionable about asking that question? This is the idea that I believe people object to having taught as fact.
Indeed. One key point that kept constantly being missed or avoided in the original Manwe discussion on this was this. The MAIN thing people are referring to when they say "evolution" is the origin of LIFE, not just the origin of species. From that thread, I am convinced that that is indeed a hypothesis, not a theory, yet it is not being taught as such in classrooms (at least not the classrooms I attended).


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:04 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Primula_Baggins wrote:
I just want to say that I'm married to a scientist, have worked for scientists, and have been around scientists all of my adult life—mostly biologists—and I have never met one who did not accept evolution. There is controversy among scientists as to the details. No reputable biologist that I have ever heard of disputes the essentials.

Many of the scientists I'm talking about are practicing Christians, by the way.
That's great for them. You know what, though? It means nothing. I could have been a biologist. Really I could have. I enjoyed every Biology class I took (outside of the Evolution sections you understand). It would have been a peice of cake for me to go through the biology programs I had at my disposal, and I would have been good at it.

I didn't. You know why? Because I couldn't stand the "I'm better than those religious types that believe we didn't evolve from nothing" attitude almost ALL of them have. The science pushes "disbelievers" away. So saying you've never met a biologist that didn't believe in evolution is not at all surprising.

The simple fact is, using evolution to explain the origin of mankind is not science. It is connected to science, and fits into scientific theories, which is not surprising, becuase if it didn't, those theories wouldn't exist.

But it is not science, just like intelligent design is not science.

I used to argue that intelligent design could be science, but I was operating under the idea that using scientific methods to hypothesis and test hypotheses about what we see in the historical record made something scientfic. It doesn't. It just makes our guesses at history better.

You can't apply the scientific method to something that happened 1000 years ago. You can use the tools science has given us to help guess what happened, but you cannot do any experiment to repeat the situation that caused it... because 1000 years would have to go by. That throws the scientific method out the window. It leaves only guesses and no experiments. In other words... the study of history.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:06 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
vison wrote:
Fixer, having tussled with Cerin and others on this topic many times, I can tell you that you are wasting your time. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Wearing those blinders is comforting.
Wow, that was really condescending and insulting. I guess now you know how C_G feels when people disagree with his libertarian point of view.

I don't think you or anyone has tussled with me on this subject before, because as far as I recall this is the first time I've ventured into an evolution discussion (not being well-informed on the science, I don't have much to offer to such a conversation).

yovargas wrote:
Cerin, just go read this thread:
Thanks anyway. :D


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:11 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
I'm sure she meant me, Cerin.

It's funny too, because it's obvious that it is them that have the blinders on, blindly accepting that science can't tell them something false... like, I don't know, Newton's laws...


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:13 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
halplm said: Do you see the inherent conflict? The Bible presents a history of the world, and throughout our history, we have looked for evidence to support the guesses about that history. There's plenty of it, and it's all fascinating. The Theory of Evolution comes along and says, "Our guesses about history are scientific, therefore it is correct until someone proves it wrong."

Why do I feel, again, that my head is going to explode? Why am I constantly being drawn into this pointless debate?

halplm, how vividly I remember your arguments on that other forum. I see you are still stuck now where you were, and guess what? The earth has spun many, many times since then.

The bible, interesting though it is, is not a history of the world or anything near it. It is a peculiar mix of fact and myth, tales that speak to us, long boring passages that induce yawns: but it is not a textbook except in Religion classes. What history there is in it is extremely limited in scale and scope: the deeds of a few Jews wandering around in the Middle East. The entire span of biblical "history" is not even a blink of a newt's eye (or a Knute's eye, for that matter) in geological time.

There are many, many scriptures. Many creation myths. All are valid. None are "factual".

Evolution is a fact. The arguments in the scientific community are only over the details, not the mechanism. To go on arguing against evolution is like insisting the world is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth, that Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea.......ooops, wrong myth......


Top
Profile Quote
Fixer
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:18 pm
The Man who Knows his Tools
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 10:08 pm
Location: Near Tallahassee, Florida
 
Cerin wrote:
vison wrote:
Fixer, having tussled with Cerin and others on this topic many times, I can tell you that you are wasting your time. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Wearing those blinders is comforting.
Wow, that was really condescending and insulting. I guess now you know how C_G feels when people disagree with his libertarian point of view.

I don't think you or anyone has tussled with me on this subject before, because as far as I recall this is the first time I've ventured into an evolution discussion (not being well-informed on the science, I don't have much to offer to such a conversation)
Now now, she was talking to me. I think what they are trying to tell me is something I already know: Cerin doesn't change her opinions, ever.

Nothing that anyone can say will ever change your mind. This, of course, means you cannot be debated with. With you it is 'my way or I won't listen'. You really don't seem to care what anyone else's opinions, evidence, or beliefs are you just want to say your own and I believe you would argue with a camel if it disagreed with you.

Nothing wrong with any of that, of course. You are allowed your beliefs and others are allowed to disagree with you and, in this case, they are trying to warn me not to debate with you because it is the verbal equivalent of slamming myself into a brick wall. I won't get anywhere. I know I won't. You are you and I am me and you are intolerant and I am completely irreverent when it comes to intolerant people.

:D Smile! You take yourself far too seriously. :P

_________________

[ img ]

The best measure of our accomplishments in life is not what goods we have accumulated or the recognition gained from actions we have performed, but what we leave for others who choose to follow the path we made for them.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:19 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin--

It gets me down because it makes me face two hard facts:

1) There are ideas that are sine qua nons for me, in terms of how I live, and in terms of who my friends are. Experience has taught me the hard way that relationships with people who view the universe in a fundamentally different way that I do cannot last. I love a diversity of views, but they have to be from my universe. I'm arrogant like that.

2) There are people here whom I otherwise like that have fundamentally conflicting, and intrinsically hostile, sine qua nons of their own. Which means that I'll never be able to get past the stage of exchanging pleasantries with them, because anything more will lead to unpleasantries. And that's a shame, but there's really nothing to be done about it.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:21 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Hal: There is a difference between the two, and the desire or agenda to classify them as the same seems to me to be a desire for Science to combat religion.

My perspective is that the reverse is happening. There is no scientist anywhere arguing that evolution should be taught in religion classes as an alternative to the Bible.

Cerin: And does this theory of 'natural selection' lead to the notion that all species evolved from simpler life forms? Because that is the idea I think most people are referring to when they talk about teaching 'evolution'.

I would turn the statement around and say that when we observe complex life forms we can see in them the elements of simpler life forms. The process of examination goes from what is currently observable to distant past, not the other way around. We don't look at fossils and ask: What did this turn into? We look at observable species and ask: what led to the success of this particular mutation?

As we go backwards step by step we are able to explain (in all cases so far) the advantage conferred by successive mutations, so we are able to explain why these mutations came to prevail in genotype. The end result is a chain of species that appear to be related to one another chronologically. But you can't start at the beginning and guess forward because the changes themselves are random.

I'm afraid my ignorance makes it difficult for me to discuss this intelligently. Are you suggesting that every known species' emergence can currently be explained in terms of reproductive advantage?

Yes. So far.

So how, for example, is our emergence explained in those terms?

We're omnivores, so we have access to a larger food supply than strict carnivores or herbivores. The opposable thumb allowing tool use has enabled us to control our food supply in ways that non-primates cannot. (Other primates also use tools, by the way). The rotation of the female pelvis has allowed significantly larger head size and brain capacity than the other primates and this has given us the ability to make clothing, control fire, and live in nearly every climatic zone. Larger habitat = more reproduction = successful species.

The theory of natural selection does not attempt to explain things like why we have religious beliefs. That's outside the realm of evolutionary biology.

I said: >We may re-order the animals in any number of ways without calling into question the fact that they emergered as species because they possessed some reproductive advantage over their competition.>

You are saying this is fact. So it is not theory?

It is a fact that reclassifying certain species does not overturn the theory of natural selection because the theory does not require species to be classified in a certain way. That's what I was saying.

Have we observed the emergence of new species? Yes - all the time!

It takes from four to sixty generations for a successful mutation to establish itself as the prevailing genotype in a population, depending on how advantageous the mutation is compared to its competition. A mutation results in speciation if the change is large enough that the new organism can no longer breed with the old organism and produce fertile offspring. So ... horses and ponies, for example, are different species because their offspring are not fertile. But not all successful mutations result in speciation. If the breeding populations continue to interact because of geographic proximity, then the emergence of a distinct new species might not be obvious until many generations have passed. Then we might be able to conclude that today's population would not have been able to bear fertile offspring with some distant ancestor, but in such cases the distant ancestor is probably extinct, meaning there are no more examples of that particular genotype available for comparison.

We postulate, for example, that homosapiens sapiens is the same species as home sapiens - modern man is a mutation but not a different species. But homo habilis is a different species. I don't know if they've been able to confirm this distinction by DNA analysis ... I believe we postulate the existence of a prior species based on anatomical differences. But homo habilis is extinct so we can't really test this postulate in practice.

But if the lifespan of the organism is short enough that we have distant ancestors and progency available for comparison, then we can note the process of speciation as it happens. With viruses, for example, the process is rapid because their lifespan is something like seven days. Mutations are happening all the time, in all species, including us. Most are not successful and never appear as options in the population, but if the population is large and short lived then you can see mutations appearing and succeeding and dominating the population.

I said:
>On average, those mutations that confer some competitive advantage will survive to reproductive maturity and they will reproduce. They will end up being the species we observe.>

And this is the theory that we are talking about when we talk about 'evolution'?

Yes.

And the logical conclusion is that human beings (and all other species) evolved from some other form of life?

Life forms change as a result of mutation and the chromosomal swapping that takes place during sexual reproduction. This is observable. We don't have to speculate about that. What the theory says is that this process, together with environmental competition for scarce resources, is sufficient to explain the diversity of species on Earth.

I said:
>There is no evidence whatsoever, so far, that natural selection is an inadequate explanation for speciation, and there are not large numbers of scientists who do not subscribe to it. >

Well then, why and how does this debate exist?

This debate does not exist within the scientific community.

I know it does exist ...

Yes, within the religious community.

and it was my understanding that there are many scientists who do not subscribe to the idea that the species we see today evolved from simpler life forms.

You have been misled. Natural selection is among the least controversial theories in existence. It is less controversial among biologists than gravity is among physicists.

I said:
>You're just not up on the alternative theories in physics because they do not receive the same publicity>

Or perhaps because they are not (or were not) taught alongside the prevailing theories?

Well, they are at higher educational levels within the discipline. It is enough for high school students to know that the force that makes things fall is called 'gravity.' And that it is one of several forces that we can identify and use for predictive purposes. To enter the debate as to how this force operates requires a lot more math than most high school students have at their disposal.

No one debates that things of smaller mass will be drawn toward the center of the nearest larger-mass object, and that's basically what we teach when we teach the theory of gravity. The how and why of it is left for graduate school.

Same thing with natural selection. No one debates that life forms change or that we can explain diversity by means of mutation + competition. The how and why of it is left for grad school.

But really, where 'evolution' is concerned ... because I know that high school text books do show the pictures of homo habilis walking from left to right and evolving into homo sapiens sapiens ... where evolution is concerned the teachers should be very, very clear that the theory ONLY addresses our physical form because that's the only thing it can address, being science.

If people are seeking to disprove something, I assume it is because they find the theory questionable (that is, unsound) to begin with and object to it being taught as truth.

If only that were true! Scientific results have social implications and might be resisted for all kinds of non-scientific reasons.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:24 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Cerin wrote:
Primula_Baggins wrote:
No reputable biologist that I have ever heard of disputes the essentials.
And do those essentials include the idea that the species we see today (including ourselves) evolved from simpler life forms?
Yes.

As for believing in a theory because it hasn't been falsified—that's the only reason scientists accept anything as established. Once there is a large enough body of evidence that does not falsify a theory, it's established until and unless it's falsified. You cannot prove a theory. Not even gravity. There is always the possibility that something out there, someday, might cast doubt on it.

However, in the interim we go right on using it, and successfully.

Halplm . . . as I said, many of the scientists I was talking about are believers. Christians. Or if by your standards they aren't, then neither am I.

And, that said, I think I'm out of here. I've been round this merry-go-round before, and I don't have the energy to enjoy it this time.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:25 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:27 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
Cerin wrote:
vison wrote:
Fixer, having tussled with Cerin and others on this topic many times, I can tell you that you are wasting your time. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Wearing those blinders is comforting.
Wow, that was really condescending and insulting. I guess now you know how C_G feels when people disagree with his libertarian point of view.

I don't think you or anyone has tussled with me on this subject before, because as far as I recall this is the first time I've ventured into an evolution discussion (not being well-informed on the science, I don't have much to offer to such a conversation).

yovargas wrote:
Cerin, just go read this thread:
Thanks anyway. :D
Sorry for including you in an argument you weren't in. I apologize for that mistake.

"condescending and insulting"? Funny how often people react that way when their certainties are questioned. My views are not MEANT to insult anyone, but I admit that my tone might lack the kind of diplomacy required to keep everything "nice". It is, however, beyond me to allow the "creationist" assertions to go unchallenged.

Bringing religion into a discussion of the Theory of Evolution is counterproductive in nearly every way. There is simply no way that certain religious beliefs are not going to be "insulted" by the facts of science. Maybe the best solution would be for those who deny Evolution to start a thread and argue with each other over just which creation myth is most likely to be true. I think we have representatives of several religions here, even some non-Christians.

Religion and science are two separate magisteriums. One deals with the unknowable, and one deals with everything else.

It is entirely possible, for instance, that God created everything exactly as is described in the bible. Possible. This is not a hypothesis, just an assertion. And so far, not one shred of evidence in favour of that assertion, despite centuries of searching. But who knows? Maybe tomorrow.


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:36 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
Jn wrote:
So ... horses and ponies, for example, are different species because their offspring are not fertile.
Horses & ponies are the same species and do produce fertile offspring. It's donkeys that are a different species. A donkey crossed with a horse (or pony, for that matter) produces a mule which will never bear or father offspring, no matter what sort of animal it is bred with.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:40 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin: Just because there is only one scientific explanation, it does not follow that those who find the explanation unsatisfactory will accept it.

That's right. There are a couple prevailing theories in economics against which I rage with all my force. But if I want to argue against them, I have to play by the rules established for my discipline. It's not legitimate for me to go to the legislature and demand that they pass a law stating that changes in Velocity are not inversely related to changes in the Money Supply. :)

Likewise it is not legitimate for people of religious conviction to use the legislature to overturn scientific theories.

Fixer: The origins of humanity cannot be proven by science. Period. The origins of humanity are not observable.

Well, but there is lots of observable evidence from paleontology. And we have a collection of methods considered to be legitimate for determining likely relationships between what's happening now and what's happening in the past.

Hal: The second is that this mechanism of biology explains the origins of mankind. This is not science. It is history, and however much science is used to make our guesses about that history more accurate, those guesses are NOT science.

No, Hal. Biology is a natural science. It's not history. The methodologies are completely different.

The MAIN thing people are referring to when they say "evolution" is the origin of LIFE, not just the origin of species.

This may be. I don't know what people argue about in churches. If so, the answer is that we don't know how life appeared on earth. On that question you may hold whatever opinion you like.

Generally, regarding this question of whether complicated organisms evolved from simpler organism ... we classify the animal life forms into 33 phyla. 32 of them have the same building blocks. It has been reasonable to work from the postulate that they are all, therefore, related. So far no one has come up with a postulate that offers more fruitful hypotheses. If someone comes up with a better option, then it will be investigated.

But if the postulate rests on the existence of some invisible being, then scientists just can't do anything with it using scientific methodology. It's not that we wouldn't like to, we're just restricted by the rule of our discipline to deal only with observable phenomena.

Jn

edit: Maria - you're right of course! I meant donkeys. (We cross-posted)

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 3 of 22  [ 438 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 522 »
Jump to: