Evolution

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Evolution

Post by Typhoon »

noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.

aint that nifty.

the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
You've noted a common theme of crackpots with regards to science be it evolution, physics, or chemistry. Also mathematics.

They typically assert that "It's all wrong" without being able being able to offer a coherent alternative theory that accounts for the experimental and/or observational data.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Evolution

Post by Typhoon »

May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Typhoon wrote:
noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.

aint that nifty.

the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
You've noted a common theme of crackpots with regards to science be it evolution, physics, or chemistry. Also mathematics.

They typically assert that "It's all wrong" without being able being able to offer a coherent alternative theory that accounts for the experimental and/or observational data.
However true this typically is, I think it is a step too far to criticize someone for asserting "it's all wrong" just because they are unable to produce an alternative. Pointing out problems, offering solutions, and creating practical applications from abstractions are three different skills.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.

aint that nifty.

the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
Au contraire, it's highly relevant. We do and think what is pleasing to us. Yes, I'm being that obtuse.

If it weren't the case, we wouldn't have Chuck "I saw a duck" Darwin kicking this whole thing off- natura non facit saltus.

If there arose a rival to the theory of natural selection to explain the facts of evolution tomorrow, it would turn into an extremely emotional battle of supporters and detractors; as there is so much personal identity wrapped up into natural selection [the Darkwins crew] and financial interests [from museums to textbooks] I do not see how a new theory is accepted willingly, merely on the arrival of "more" evidence.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.

aint that nifty.

the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
You've noted a common theme of crackpots with regards to science be it evolution, physics, or chemistry. Also mathematics.

They typically assert that "It's all wrong" without being able being able to offer a coherent alternative theory that accounts for the experimental and/or observational data.
However true this typically is, I think it is a step too far to criticize someone for asserting "it's all wrong" just because they are unable to produce an alternative. Pointing out problems, offering solutions, and creating practical applications from abstractions are three different skills.
no. thats all wrong.
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.

aint that nifty.

the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
Au contraire, it's highly relevant. We do and think what is pleasing to us. Yes, I'm being that obtuse.

If it weren't the case, we wouldn't have Chuck "I saw a duck" Darwin kicking this whole thing off- natura non facit saltus.

If there arose a rival to the theory of natural selection to explain the facts of evolution tomorrow, it would turn into an extremely emotional battle of supporters and detractors; as there is so much personal identity wrapped up into natural selection [the Darkwins crew] and financial interests [from museums to textbooks] I do not see how a new theory is accepted willingly, merely on the arrival of "more" evidence.
if their is reproducable evidence that a cornerstone of evolution is incorrect and human politics causes that evidence to be smothered then ill accept this thought experiment.

i have no doubt that changing the careers and opinions of many thousands of biologists will be a long hard job if that evidence is not super obvious and easy to replicate.

this however is a completely different story to strawman assertions, 100 year ago simplifications and outright untruths - the things mr p has brought to the table so far

im not knocking people who dont like evolution, i dont think they are stupid, i dont look down on them. i dont think believing in evolution is important.

still, i cant honestly say i think their arguments on this topic are relevant until they make them relevant by showing some basic grasp on the subject matter.

i dont waste my time in theoretical physics arguments because i dont have the time or carefactor to get up to speed on it all, i dont expect anyone to think i have a relevant opinion on it.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.

aint that nifty.

the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
You've noted a common theme of crackpots with regards to science be it evolution, physics, or chemistry. Also mathematics.

They typically assert that "It's all wrong" without being able being able to offer a coherent alternative theory that accounts for the experimental and/or observational data.
However true this typically is, I think it is a step too far to criticize someone for asserting "it's all wrong" just because they are unable to produce an alternative. Pointing out problems, offering solutions, and creating practical applications from abstractions are three different skills.
no. thats all wrong.
So no one in the history of mankind has ever raised a question they couldn't solve?

No one has ever invented something they couldn't explain?

No one has offered a solution to a question they personally didn't think to ask?
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.

aint that nifty.

the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
You've noted a common theme of crackpots with regards to science be it evolution, physics, or chemistry. Also mathematics.

They typically assert that "It's all wrong" without being able being able to offer a coherent alternative theory that accounts for the experimental and/or observational data.
However true this typically is, I think it is a step too far to criticize someone for asserting "it's all wrong" just because they are unable to produce an alternative. Pointing out problems, offering solutions, and creating practical applications from abstractions are three different skills.
no. thats all wrong.
So no one in the history of mankind has ever raised a question they couldn't solve?

No one has ever invented something they couldn't explain?

No one has offered a solution to a question they personally didn't think to ask?
[besides the fact i was cheekily answering you with your claim as evidence of its usefulness]

the truth is that so many people have its not worth keeping track of them.

my mad mother in law is chock full of reasons every damn thing is wrong, its not interesting unless their is reasons for those reasons.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:
still, i cant honestly say i think their arguments on this topic are relevant until they make them relevant by showing some basic grasp on the subject matter.


Their arguments in general are not relevant but Michael Behe (as an example off the top of my head, if I'm thinking of the right guy) is not lacking a basic grasp of biology. I don't see why anyone has to accept "Do you even lift, bro?" posturing.
i dont waste my time in theoretical physics arguments because i dont have the time or carefactor to get up to speed on it all, i dont expect anyone to think i have a relevant opinion on it.
Theoretical physics slap fights have a lotta mathematics and don't rock back and forth on an old nerve.

They are don't bump into that human limitation of not being very good at accounting for catastrophe.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

on a quite fundamental level i dont have a problem with evolution - once you spend enough time learning about enough species and fossils their is so many blurry boundaries and categories up for argument it becomes quite obvious that their isnt a neat separation between permanently fixed species.

i do see a lack of solid evidence for the first dna-based-critter and i also see that some of the forks in the tree dont have nice neatly explained pathways.

the ways that dna changes and the reasons it does so are not 100% fleshed out, so i wouldnt be surprised if their is a much richer explanation of all that which is yet to come.

all this however is a refinement on the basic premise, i really cant see that changing without a dramatic new spanner in the works, like proof of god, or superior aliens or some other such thing.

all that does is kick the question back up a notch anyway, where did that alien/god come from....
ultracrepidarian
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:
still, i cant honestly say i think their arguments on this topic are relevant until they make them relevant by showing some basic grasp on the subject matter.


Their arguments in general are not relevant but Michael Behe (as an example off the top of my head, if I'm thinking of the right guy) is not lacking a basic grasp of biology. I don't see why anyone has to accept "Do you even lift, bro?" posturing.
i dont think "Do you even lift, bro?" posturing is a correct assesment of what i was going on about - the arguments so far have been strawmen and false representations or quibbling over minor details while ignoring masses of dna and fossil evidence.

i caught back up with mr behe's arguments and they are all "i dont like it" based, which is nice, i just dont find god of the gaps stuff intellectually interesting, i dont have to pretend that i do.

the hardcore anti theism crowd have their takedown of him at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:
still, i cant honestly say i think their arguments on this topic are relevant until they make them relevant by showing some basic grasp on the subject matter.


Their arguments in general are not relevant but Michael Behe (as an example off the top of my head, if I'm thinking of the right guy) is not lacking a basic grasp of biology. I don't see why anyone has to accept "Do you even lift, bro?" posturing.
i dont think "Do you even lift, bro?" posturing is a correct assesment of what i was going on about - the arguments so far have been strawmen and false representations or quibbling over minor details while ignoring masses of dna and fossil evidence.

i caught back up with mr behe's arguments and they are all "i dont like it" based, which is nice, i just dont find god of the gaps stuff intellectually interesting, i dont have to pretend that i do.

the hardcore anti theism crowd have their takedown of him at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
That they are hardcore proves the assessment.

I don't know Behe's arguments well enough to disagree anywhere; my point was that "I don't like it" from Behe doesn't mean he doesn't get the "basics" which was the floor you established. There are a bunch of Behe's out there, of various credentials arguing for design for a variety of motives [the money thing goes both ways].
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.

aint that nifty.

the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
You've noted a common theme of crackpots with regards to science be it evolution, physics, or chemistry. Also mathematics.

They typically assert that "It's all wrong" without being able being able to offer a coherent alternative theory that accounts for the experimental and/or observational data.
However true this typically is, I think it is a step too far to criticize someone for asserting "it's all wrong" just because they are unable to produce an alternative. Pointing out problems, offering solutions, and creating practical applications from abstractions are three different skills.
no. thats all wrong.
So no one in the history of mankind has ever raised a question they couldn't solve?

No one has ever invented something they couldn't explain?

No one has offered a solution to a question they personally didn't think to ask?
[besides the fact i was cheekily answering you with your claim as evidence of its usefulness]

the truth is that so many people have its not worth keeping track of them.

my mad mother in law is chock full of reasons every damn thing is wrong, its not interesting unless their is reasons for those reasons.
Right, I can't argue with this (nor the point about pretending to care about god of the gap arguing, from the other post).

Obstreperous personalities will be attracted to...(most charitably) non-mainstream theories. Then there are those who fall under the mother-in-laws' rule of thumb: they will complain and present alternatives as a form of art, self expression or psychological means to control their observations.

The former though also tend towards the undisciplined, truculent and disorderly; which is almost self-defeating to the purpose of opposing something: to be institutionalized. :)
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:on a quite fundamental level i dont have a problem with evolution - once you spend enough time learning about enough species and fossils their is so many blurry boundaries and categories up for argument it becomes quite obvious that their isnt a neat separation between permanently fixed species.

i do see a lack of solid evidence for the first dna-based-critter and i also see that some of the forks in the tree dont have nice neatly explained pathways.

the ways that dna changes and the reasons it does so are not 100% fleshed out, so i wouldnt be surprised if their is a much richer explanation of all that which is yet to come.

all this however is a refinement on the basic premise, i really cant see that changing without a dramatic new spanner in the works, like proof of god, or superior aliens or some other such thing.

all that does is kick the question back up a notch anyway, where did that alien/god come from....
I think bioinformatics will be an interdisciplinary field which helps a ton going forward (once converted to more palatable layman speak for the rest of the gang).
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

When researchers at Emory University in Atlanta trained mice to fear the smell of almonds (by pairing it with electric shocks), they found, to their consternation, that both the children and grandchildren of these mice were spontaneously afraid of the same smell. That is not supposed to happen. Generations of schoolchildren have been taught that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible. A mouse should not be born with something its parents have learned during their lifetimes, any more than a mouse that loses its tail in an accident should give birth to tailless mice. . . .
New directions in evolutionary science.
https://aeon.co/essays/science-in-flux- ... ary-theory
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

will be interesting to see how that pans out.

the nature and nurture of dna itself is still an open question - ditto the conditions in the womb for the developing child.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Evolution

Post by Simple Minded »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
When researchers at Emory University in Atlanta trained mice to fear the smell of almonds (by pairing it with electric shocks), they found, to their consternation, that both the children and grandchildren of these mice were spontaneously afraid of the same smell. That is not supposed to happen. Generations of schoolchildren have been taught that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible. A mouse should not be born with something its parents have learned during their lifetimes, any more than a mouse that loses its tail in an accident should give birth to tailless mice. . . .
New directions in evolutionary science.
https://aeon.co/essays/science-in-flux- ... ary-theory
Big Brother or Big Sister who want to control society for the common good can find lots of justification in this article for more totalitarian control of parents and culture.

"Must crack down on racist, sexist, intolerant parents and parents who don't believe in climate change and political correctness, etc. Home schooling must be eradicated!

Ve vill control the scientists and teachers! Jah?"
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote:
noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.

aint that nifty.

the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
You've noted a common theme of crackpots with regards to science be it evolution, physics, or chemistry. Also mathematics.

They typically assert that "It's all wrong" without being able being able to offer a coherent alternative theory that accounts for the experimental and/or observational data.
This is false, falsification does not depend on providing an alternative. Any claim or hypothesis must rise or fall on it's own merits and as we've seen in this thread evolution fails in totality.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
When researchers at Emory University in Atlanta trained mice to fear the smell of almonds (by pairing it with electric shocks), they found, to their consternation, that both the children and grandchildren of these mice were spontaneously afraid of the same smell. That is not supposed to happen. Generations of schoolchildren have been taught that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible. A mouse should not be born with something its parents have learned during their lifetimes, any more than a mouse that loses its tail in an accident should give birth to tailless mice. . . .
New directions in evolutionary science.
https://aeon.co/essays/science-in-flux- ... ary-theory
Again, this isn't evolution. Evolution is one species turning into another, which has never been witnessed or determined.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

noddy wrote:on a quite fundamental level i dont have a problem with evolution - once you spend enough time learning about enough species and fossils their is so many blurry boundaries and categories up for argument it becomes quite obvious that their isnt a neat separation between permanently fixed species.
This is actually an argument against evolution but at least you are not alone. Members of that religion struggle, like you, to even define what the idea is. That which is not defined cannot be science.

N984S9W7VdI
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
Posts: 2150
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Miss_Faucie_Fishtits »

Thank G_d I'm a Fideist because we should respect the psychological origins of our species as much as the physical ones. We shouldn't discard something we don't even fully understand; and we shouldn't use 'settled science' as a replacement metastructure for human valuation and action, because....... that probably wouldn't work either......'>......
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:Thank G_d I'm a Fideist because we should respect the psychological origins of our species as much as the physical ones. We shouldn't discard something we don't even fully understand; and we shouldn't use 'settled science' as a replacement metastructure for human valuation and action, because....... that probably wouldn't work either......'>......
i never got biology class confused with divinity and philosophy classes either but apparently thats considered heretical in the modern USA.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Evolution

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:Thank G_d I'm a Fideist because we should respect the psychological origins of our species as much as the physical ones. We shouldn't discard something we don't even fully understand; and we shouldn't use 'settled science' as a replacement metastructure for human valuation and action, because....... that probably wouldn't work either......'>......
i never got biology class confused with divinity and philosophy classes either but apparently thats considered heretical in the modern USA.
Again, zip code dependent....
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
Posts: 2150
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Miss_Faucie_Fishtits »

Buy my mixtape on spotify.......XD...........

I will mix metaphors if it will help me thinks. I'll work with the words we have rather than invent new ones.........
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Evolution

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
noddy wrote:on a quite fundamental level i dont have a problem with evolution - once you spend enough time learning about enough species and fossils their is so many blurry boundaries and categories up for argument it becomes quite obvious that their isnt a neat separation between permanently fixed species.
This is actually an argument against evolution but at least you are not alone. Members of that religion struggle, like you, to even define what the idea is. That which is not defined cannot be science.

N984S9W7VdI
Actually, no. It's an edited excerpt from the The Great Debate - What is Life? meeting.

The entire discussion:

The Great Debate - What is Life
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:Thank G_d I'm a Fideist because we should respect the psychological origins of our species as much as the physical ones. We shouldn't discard something we don't even fully understand; and we shouldn't use 'settled science' as a replacement metastructure for human valuation and action, because....... that probably wouldn't work either......'>......
Psychological origin of species. Ok. Do you also respect the psychological origins of gender identity? Surely one should not automatically discount what they do not understand, right?
Post Reply