Origin of the species, where do you stand?

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see. Since there is a more evidence for your belief, then that makes it true?

It makes it far more probable.

I agree, but just because one explanation is superior to others, that doesn't make it absolute, indisputable fact.

"There you go again" (Ronald Reagan).

WHO claimed absolute, indisputable fact?

The only absolute claims I have heard in this area are from religious fundamentalists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

There are no indisputable facts in science.

For posterity

• Quote

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see. Since there is a more evidence for your belief, then that makes it true?

It makes it far more probable.

I agree, but just because one explanation is superior to others, that doesn't make it absolute, indisputable fact.

Science does not claim to know any "absolute, indisputable facts." Science offers models that closely approximate reality, that can be used to predict future states. However, even Einstein, who essentially proved Newton "wrong," knew that his theories will also be cast aside for something more accurate in the future. However, whatever replaces his theories has to be more accurate in terms of modeling reality.

We once thought the earth was flat. Then we thought the earth was spherical. Today, we know both beliefs are not true. However, one is much less true than the other one.

We once believed earth to be the center of the solar system. Ptolemy devised a model that could be used to approximate positions of various planets and stars in the sky. Copernicus proposed a heliostatic model of the solar system, placing the sun near the center and giving the planets circular orbits. We know both models are incorrect, and do not accurately represent reality. However, one is more wrong than the other one.

So, no, science doesn't offer absolute indisputable facts. Science offers models consistent with known physical evidence. When more accurate models are discovered, older ones are usually abandoned. (Newton's laws of motion and gravity are still used because they are very accurate on the scales and speeds we usually work with, and are simpler than Einstein's more accurate models.)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[BillPaine 0]

Recommended reading for all participants of this thread:
"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.

And here are a few quotes for your perusal:

"Men are not the dreams of gods. Rather, gods are the dreams of men." (Carl Sagan)

"Gods are fragile things. They may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." (Chapman Cohen)

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." (Richard Dawkins)

"Blind faith requires no vision." (Flacco)

"Where knowledge ends, religion begins." (Benjamin Disraeli)

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." (Albert Einstein)

"We have met the enemy...and he is us." Pogo

www.mondo-fiasco.com

[billvon 2,464]

One other quote, applicable to some religious leaders:

"It's impossible to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair

[billvon 2,464]

>A blue whale has never had legs and walked on the land.

A few pointers:

Dolphins with vestigial rear "legs" have been discovered recently:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/4311447.html

Humpback whale with four foot long hind legs, complete with femur and tibia:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/rudiments02.html

[gjhdiver 0]

It's great watching creationsists argue about science, because it's clear that they haven't actually done any real reading on the subject for the most part. The one's that do realize what a crock of shit original creation theory is, so now we get creation theory lite, otherwise known as intelligent design. It's a tired attempt to try to incorporate the bits of science that they can no longer dispute, such as the age of the earth, and the development of the genome. It's still the same old bullshit though.

Still, it beats doing any real thinking though. Once people have signed on to the big lie of religion, it's easy to radicalize them and sell them anything. I shall change this view only when I see an atheist strap on a bomb vest because of their lack of belief.

But I digess, as I like to do. Now back to your regular programming.

[billvon 2,464]

One good thing about being a non-evolutionist nowadays is you have a whole smorgasbord of alternatives to choose from. Just a few:

Young Earth Creationists (YEC's) that believe the earth was created in the past 10,000 years, just like the bible says. One variant of this is the Omphalos belief, which states that the earth was _created_ to look old but is really quite new.

Old Earth Creationists (OEC's.) This is a compromise position that believes in _some_ biblical creationism but not all. Some variants:

The "day-ageists." These people believe that when the bible says "day" it really means "age" - so each day could be (say) a billion years long.

The "gap theory." This theory states that Genesis is literally correct, but that billions of years passed _between_ the days. i.e. between the first and second days that God delineates, three billion years passed.

Progressive creationists. These creationists believe in an old earth, formed by geologic processes, but God stepped in at certain points and did some tweaking - i.e. he created single-cell life, then caused it to become multicellular, then caused it to become chordate, then vertebrate, then created apes, etc etc.

Intelligent design. This is the latest. It's immensely popular because supporters feel like they can "attack sciene with science" (or at least use scientific-sounding words.)

[jcd11235 0]

I find it odd that it is generally Christians, not Jews, that believe in creationism. Or have I just not been exposed to fundamentalist Jews?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

It's great watching creationsists argue about science, because it's clear that they haven't actually done any real reading on the subject for the most part. The one's that do realize what a crock of shit original creation theory is, so now we get creation theory lite, otherwise known as intelligent design. It's a tired attempt to try to incorporate the bits of science that they can no longer dispute, such as the age of the earth, and the development of the genome. It's still the same old bullshit though.

Still, it beats doing any real thinking though. Once people have signed on to the big lie of religion, it's easy to radicalize them and sell them anything. I shall change this view only when I see an atheist strap on a bomb vest because of their lack of belief.

But I digess, as I like to do. Now back to your regular programming.

Ironically, the fundamentalist Christians and the fundamentalist atheists really believe the same thing about the relationship between science and religion.

Both are wrong, IMHO.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

I find it odd that it is generally Christians, not Jews, that believe in creationism. Or have I just not been exposed to fundamentalist Jews?

I have met Orthodox Jews who believe the Earth is 6012 years old (or whatever the actual number is - it's close to 6012).

"If God wants to put dinosaur bones in the ground to fool us, who are we to judge"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Next time you're at a zoo, look at the otters, manatees, hippos, seals and sea lions there. You'll see flippers in all forms, from basic hands (otters) to flippers that are almost exclusively for water propulsion (manatees.) Evolution prepares organisms for all manner of niches.

Quote

Once they've found their niche they tend to stay there.

How is it that with the millions, or billions of years for a species to advance its progression up the evolutionary ladder that, the world over, a species is the basically the same in one spot as it is 1,000 miles away.

Let's take a look at the higher primates since these are considered to be our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.

Remember now, that we've had billions of years for progression.

We should be able to find some starting to develop a written language, some, a spoken language that involves more than grunts and screams. Some should be developing complex weapons to protect them from the attack of a leopard or a lion.

Their homes should consist of more than a bunch of branches piled up in the crotch of a tree.

We, as humans, are the only species who have the ability to use complex thought processes in order to continually make our lives easier. We are also the only ones who have the ability to destroy the environment that is needed to sustain life.

I dare say that we are also the only species that is capable of complex but useless emotions such as contempt or hate, which points to the fact that we are far and away, more complex beings than the rest of, for lack of a better word, creation.

• Quote

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Next time you're at a zoo, look at the otters, manatees, hippos, seals and sea lions there. You'll see flippers in all forms, from basic hands (otters) to flippers that are almost exclusively for water propulsion (manatees.) Evolution prepares organisms for all manner of niches.

Quote

Once they've found their niche they tend to stay there.

How is it that with the millions, or billions of years for a species to advance its progression up the evolutionary ladder that, the world over, a species is the basically the same in one spot as it is 1,000 miles away.

Let's take a look at the higher primates since these are considered to be our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.

Remember now, that we've had billions of years for progression.

We should be able to find some starting to develop a written language, some, a spoken language that involves more than grunts and screams. Some should be developing complex weapons to protect them from the attack of a leopard or a lion.

Their homes should consist of more than a bunch of branches piled up in the crotch of a tree.

We, as humans, are the only species who have the ability to use complex thought processes in order to continually make our lives easier. We are also the only ones who have the ability to destroy the environment that is needed to sustain life.

I dare say that we are also the only species that is capable of complex but useless emotions such as contempt or hate, which points to the fact that we are far and away, more complex beings than the rest of, for lack of a better word, creation.

The fallacy that negates your entire argument is that we are the ultimate result of the "progression" of evolution. The abundance of other species shows very clearly that high intelligence and opposable thumbs are not required traits for survival and reproduction. Cockroaches are doing just fine.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[Royd 0]

Quote

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." (Richard Dawkins)

Do you really believe that Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Kim Jung Il had a better plan with the religion of humanism. Every one of them except Marx have set themselves up as gods. That's where socialism eventually ends up.

[Royd 0]

Quote

The fallacy that negates your entire argument is that we are the ultimate result of the "progression" of evolution. The abundance of other species shows very clearly that high intelligence and opposable thumbs are not required traits for survival and reproduction. Cockroaches are doing just fine.

Gee, thanks Prof, I thought that I was doing pretty good.
Once a species advances to the next level, the less effecient model, by logic, will become extinct. Had we evloved from apes, they would have simply disappeared as an outdated part of the process. Within their own environment, they continue to function as they have for eons.

By the way, cockroaches must have hit their stride right out of the blocks.

[Amazon 7]

Think of the evolutionary TREE..... some branches have done better than others.

http://www.tolweb.org/tree/


THey are evolving on a different scale from what we did... they may be related genetically... and we may have had a common ancestor.. but we split off from them...

[billvon 2,464]

> How is it that with the millions, or billions of years for a species to
> advance its progression up the evolutionary ladder that, the world over, a
>species is the basically the same in one spot as it is 1,000 miles away.

That's generally not true. Look at Australia, a land mass that got completely isolated 55 million years ago. In most other places on the planet, the primary warm-blooded animal was the mammal. In Australia, it was the marsupial - which is a very different way of dealing with birth and childrearing (in many ways, better!)

But if the animals can interbreed - say, they're fish that swim all over the ocean - then they don't diverge, since their gene pool remains evenly mixed.

>Remember now, that we've had billions of years for progression.

Divergence from our most recent common ancestor happened about five million years ago, not billions.

>We should be able to find some starting to develop a written language,
>some, a spoken language that involves more than grunts and
>screams.

There was such a species - Neanderthal. We killed them all. Survival of the fittest and all.

>Some should be developing complex weapons to protect them from the
>attack of a leopard or a lion.

Why? Chimpanzees have the ability to brachiate - to basically fly through trees by swinging from hands and feet. That's more effective than any weapon. Why use a weapon that might fail when you can escape threats much more easily, with tools that evolution has already provided you?

Evolution does not provide ideal solutions. It just provides solutions that work well _enough_ to allow survival of a species.

>Their homes should consist of more than a bunch of branches piled up
>in the crotch of a tree.

Again, why? Because you don't like living in a tree? All that matters is that they _can_ live there.

>We, as humans, are the only species who have the ability to use
>complex thought processes in order to continually make our lives
>easier. We are also the only ones who have the ability to destroy the
>environment that is needed to sustain life.

?? Not by a long shot. Looks what rabbits did to australia. Zebra mussels to the Great Lakes. Rats in Jamaica. The only place you see truly stable ecosystems are places where the balance between predator/prey, parasite/host and shade-lover/sun-lover has had time to establish itself - and even then, that "balance" generally looks more like a sine wave than a straight line.

However, it's true that we have refined the destruction of habitats to an art form. We can do it faster and more thoroughly than almost any other animal.

>I dare say that we are also the only species that is capable of complex
>but useless emotions such as contempt or hate, which points to the
>fact that we are far and away, more complex beings than the rest of,
>for lack of a better word, creation.

It means we have more complex brains. That's about it.

In terms of size, we lose bigtime to whales. In terms of elegance of design, birds win hands down. Vision? A great many birds have far better vision than we do. The ability to manipulate things? Octopuses and organutans have a lot more "hands" than we do. Genome size? A great many species have a more complex genome than we do. Digestive systems? Sheep are far, far more efficient - and their digestive system is far more complex.

The one thing we do have is intelligence. About 100,000 years ago we hit a crucial point in evolution that few other species have ever hit - we got smart enough that our ability to think abstractly started to be a survival asset. It may have been that we started to cultivate plants, and the foresight to water them became an evolutionary advantage. It may have been that we started to hunt more competently, and hunting techniques became more sophisticated. It may even have been that at some point intelligence became a sexual selection trait. (Heck, it's what led to those absurd but beautiful peacock tails.)

[billvon 2,464]

> Once a species advances to the next level, the less effecient model, by
> logic, will become extinct.

Uh, no. When Australia separated from Pangaea, and the species started to diverge into mammals and marsupials, no one flew over to Australia to exterminate the "less efficient models." They simply kept on living, as all species try to.

>Had we evloved from apes, they would have simply disappeared as an
>outdated part of the process.

We didn't evolve from apes. We simply share an ancestor. That ancestor is now extinct (or more accuately has speciated and continued evolving.) The most recent split produced man, neanderthal, chimpanzee and bonobo.

>Within their own environment, they continue to function as they have for eons.

As do a great many other species.

It would be silly to suggest that as soon as we create a new, better corn plant, all the other corn plants immediately drop dead. They continue to live as they always have. If the new corn plant can out-compete the old one in every single area it's in - and it can _reach_ all those areas - then the old corn plant might go extinct. Usually, it doesn't. Which is why there are now several million species on the planet, and not four.

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

The fallacy that negates your entire argument is that we are the ultimate result of the "progression" of evolution. The abundance of other species shows very clearly that high intelligence and opposable thumbs are not required traits for survival and reproduction. Cockroaches are doing just fine.

Gee, thanks Prof, I thought that I was doing pretty good.
Once a species advances to the next level, the less effecient model, by logic, will become extinct. Had we evloved from apes, they would have simply disappeared as an outdated part of the process. Within their own environment, they continue to function as they have for eons.

By the way, cockroaches must have hit their stride right out of the blocks.

If you took the trouble to understand evolution you might do a better job of arguing against it. However, arguing against something you apparently have not bothered to research properly does not achieve anything at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Ditto when you say "How can a horse decide to grow a long neck and become a giraffe?"

Now that's a streeetch!

[billvon 2,464]

>It's great watching creationsists argue about science . . .

If you really want to get a young-earth creationist going, ask him if men were created before cattle. (Genesis 2 says they were, Genesis 1 says that cattle came first. Oddly, in Genesis 2, women came after cattle.)

[Royd 0]

>We, as humans, are the only species who have the ability to use
>complex thought processes in order to continually make our lives
>easier. We are also the only ones who have the ability to destroy the
>environment that is needed to sustain life.

Quote

?? Not by a long shot. Looks what rabbits did to australia. Zebra mussels to the Great Lakes. Rats in Jamaica.

I guess it all depends on your point of view. Rabbits, mussels, and rats probably think that they have it pretty good until the food supply runs out, and then, nature, as it was designed to function, will take care of itself.

We only see it as an imbalance because it disturbs the flow of things as we think they should be.

I'm sure the dingo has no problem with it.

[wmw999 2,166]

Quote

I guess it all depends on your point of view. Rabbits, mussels, and rats probably think that they have it pretty good until the food supply runs out, and then, nature, as it was designed to function, will take care of itself.

We only see it as an imbalance because it disturbs the flow of things as we think they should be.

That would be the "we" in the well-fed US. I have a feeling that the "we" who have died in Africa due to famine have a different viewpoint.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[airtwardo 6]

There will always be spaces that science simply cannot answer; however, science is in fact a field of philosophy.

A good definition of philosophy would be answering one's own questions, and science does that.

The difference between science and philosophy is science requires a strong mathematical base for its conclusions and requires experimentation to settle upon them.

Philosophy in general is finding answers to different subjects by probability.
Philosophy is shunned by modern day scientists for its inaccuracy.

According to quantum theory, if you answered something using no background and only philosophical means, you would have about a 1 in million trillion trillion chance of answering the topic correctly.

That is a 1 with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeros behind it.

However quantum theory is also scientific, ergo it is philsophy.

Yet, by what means must we always be correct.

If we were to reshape history with only philsophy and no mathematical science, I feel that we would lead much happier lives than most do today.

Our future as proved scientifically is a grim one: our demise is inevitable.

Due to string theory, another big bang will occur within one million trillion years, causing the human species to be wiped out; by general science, the sun will explode in even less time than that, engulfing the inner solar system, killing us all; finally, social science reveals that if only one ballistic missile were to be launched over Europe, it would kill all life in Europe and make it unliveable for over 50,000 years.

However, according to Christianity the savior will rise once again and relieve us of our sins so that we may live pure and happy lives;
and,
Buddhism is one large collection of philosophies to live by, similar to the ten commandments, but instead worded in an eastern asian dialect.

Therefore, I hereby state that our lives are governed by one large choice:


~To believe the truth or to live in eternal bliss.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Royd 0]

Quote

If you took the trouble to understand evolution you might do a better job of arguing against it. However, arguing against something you apparently have not bothered to research properly does not achieve anything at all.

What a dull, boring world it would be for us humans if we all agreed.