Satori will get a kick out of this

[transfixed]

Doing back to the original post of the thread, perhaps it would have been best if the doctor stated "According to the theory of evolution...." ?

 

[veil the sky]

Yeh maybe

But his term 'if you believe..' suggests that maybe he didn't.

That would probably scare the shit out of a patient on a hospital bed though; a doctor that didn't believe in modern science.

-Then he took out the leeches and said "These can cure anything you know"

Mind you you should try lying on an NHS bed in the UK if you want to know real fear.

aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

Official DesolatioN Dominion

 

[Lina]

Now this is what I'm talking about! I don't agree with some of the recent posts, but they're interesting to discuss and consider. My brain thanks you.

Ok, so I'm stuffed with turkey and mashed potatoes, but here I go...

Brightoffski, I think perhaps we are arguing sematics. I understand that you're warning us that if we had "closed the book" on atoms, we wouldn't have discovered smaller particles, and you're fearing that a complacent acceptance of our current idea of evolution would discourage us from delving deeper.

But I would just say that I doubt this would actually happen. The very heart of "science" is an inquiring mind -- I don't think a scientist on the verge of a great discovery would hide it from the world (unlike religion, scientists do not have to protect the status quo).

When I speak of "evolution," I'm not discussing any complex, deep subject. I'm speaking purely of the fact that species evolve over time, becoming (presumably) more and more efficient. This answers nothing about how the universe was created, nor does it attempt to. It doesn't tell us what the first creature on earth was, every species between now and then, nor what we will be in the future. It's simply an observable phenomenon in nature.

To say one "does not believe in evolution" is akin to saying one "does not believe in Jesus" -- both are factually incorrect: Jesus was a living person, and evolution is an observable process. When someone says they don't believe in Jesus, they most likely mean they don't believe he was the son of god or held any special divine powers. And when someone says they don't believe in evolution, I can only assume they mean they don't think it answers every question about our creation. But there's the catch -- IT'S NOT MEANT TO.

So I think that we basically agree in the end. Maybe?

OK, I have comments for Hannu, but I'll have to come back.

 

[Lina]

Originally posted by veil the sky
But his term 'if you believe..' suggests that maybe he didn't.

damn, i was afraid someone would take it like that. In truth, I got his words wrong and I can't remember how my mom told me he phrased it. But when I was trying to recreate it, I realized this "if you believe" sounded like he didn't. But he did, in his original words. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[veil the sky]

Sorry, that was me!!

I was only being facetious.

Trying to get in a joke about the NHS. Very English thing to do sorry again.

I wouldn't say that 'I don't believe in evolution,' in the sense that I don't belive that things evolve, but I am suspicious that 'the theory of evolution' is a factually acurate theory that will stand the test of time, mostly because science is an amorphous deity, which evolves itself. I suspect you probably agree with me on this in any case.

I don't however, believe that the inquisitive mind is a feature of science alone. I think the inquisitive mind belongs to mankind themselves. Religious belief is a result of mankind's enquiry into the most fundamental questions there are. I don't think that they necessarily hide away great discovery from the world. Saint Thomas Aquinas published staggeringly large volumes of work in the 14th century because he believed he had made significant discovery.

The Roman Catholic church, ah now they might have wished to hide away 'great discovery' for ecclesiastical reasons. Galileo was killed for his insistence upon his 'discoveries' which corroborated heliocentric astrology. More the fool them, that was the greatest pr disaster in the history of organised religion. Doh! But I think their desire to protect the status quo was not religious but political. Religion does have to maintain the sacred, the inviolable, but it's not necessary to fear the scientific predictive theories when it asks such different quesions from religion.

(I hope I'm not boring you, I just like this topic!)

Oh and can I have some turkey and mashed potatoes, sounds lovely.

Official DesolatioN Dominion

 

[Lina]

Hannu, it's an interesting point to make the distinction between the "factuality" of the existence of christianity and the the factuality of the teachings/events/ideas included IN christianity. I think this is one of the main concepts you're trying to get across, if I understood you. Personally, I don't think it interferes much with this particular evolution debate, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless.

Originally posted by Hannu Mutanen
Scientists, however, should not deny the importance of religion just because it cannot say anything scientifical about our existence.

Yes, I would agree with this to an extent. In fact, many scientists study religion's effects on society and humans -- for example, the positive health benefits of prayer (which has the same effect as the secular version, meditation).

Originally posted by Hannu Mutanen

Conclusively, religion in itself IS NOT dumb or stupid. People have drawn stupid interpretations of religious ideas and will continue to do so. To claim christianity to be based on mere myth, however, is to say Jesus did not exist. And regardless of whether or not this is true, much wisdom has been written and told in his name. Surely much of what the Bible tells (being a collection of books by various authors) is bound to a place and time, but it holds some beautiful, universal thoughts that are not to be deemed unworthy just because they are brought out in the name of religion.

I even kind of agree with this, but to me it's a moot point since i believe the beautiful and intelligent parts of the bible are somewhat coincidental. i mean, sure, some of the values it espouses are worth adhering to, but humans would instinctually adhere to them regardless of religion. after all, the bible was written by humans, and it's not like they picked these morals out of the blue. it's bad for propogation of the species to go around killing indiscriminately, for instance.

And here's why religion and science can't live peacefully side by side, independent of each other: On many issues, religion contradicts science -- be it evolution vs. creationism, natural homosexuality in species vs. homosexuality being a deviant sin, etc. When a person's belief system is religious, it's impossible for them to accept what science HAS proven if it goes against laws that were decided upon 2,000 years ago. This is when it becomes a problem. You can't possibly think this is beneficial for society's accumulation of knowledge.

 

[Lina]

Originally posted by veil the sky
I don't however, believe that the inquisitive mind is a feature of science alone. I think the inquisitive mind belongs to mankind themselves. Religious belief is a result of mankind's enquiry into the most fundamental questions there are.

In a very shallow sense, yes, this is true. People created religion as a way to answer questions about the universe and our existence. On the other hand, since we know it's so wildly inaccurate and unwilling to bend, is it really seeking to answer these questions truthfully -- or is it just an easy answer for weak-minded people who don't have the patience or curiosity to search for a more accurate answer?

Originally posted by veil the sky
(I hope I'm not boring you, I just like this topic!)

Well, some have made their boredom known, but obviously I love this topic too! So I appreciate your input.

Originally posted by veil the sky
Oh and can I have some turkey and mashed potatoes, sounds lovely.

Come on over, there's plenty of leftovers!

 

[HoserHellspawn]

Holy shit.

Well, this has been some thread. I was always waiting for the day that EVIL and Xtokalon would combine forces and finally force Satori to back down from a debate, but much to my surprise, Evisceratrix did it all by herself. Is anyone else as shocked and impressed by this feat as I am?

Satori, dude, she took a whole cross section of your points, ripped them apart, and you have failed to respond! What's going on?! Sure, none of the crap she spewed was any more "correct" than the crap you spew (or I spew, for that matter), but it sounded real good and convincing (which, really, in a debate, is the whole point. Facts mean nothing, they just make it easier - the more stubborn and/or convincing sounding person always "wins" the debate). Anyways, Evisceratrix, I applaud you.

...

ALRIGHT! My take on this whole evolution thing - I'm going to go halfway here between brightoffski and Satori/Lina.

QUESTION: is the current scientifically accepted model of the theory of evolution the same as when Darwin first came up with it?

I really don't know, but I doubt it. The theory of evolution has probably evolved. Based on all of the evidence we currently possess, the notion of evolution makes the most sense by far, to the point that we can accept it as "fact" - but no "fact" is absolute, one could in fact argue they don't exist (why does cyanide suddenly spring to mind?), but then I suppose one could argue anything.

However, the possibility that a theory could exist that contradicts evolution AND makes more logical sense is indisputeably real. It's obviously not going to originate from one of our current religions (especially ones thinking on the levels of, say, creationism), but it's probable (inevitable?) An...

...wait a second. Brightoffski has pretty much said all of this, and more eloquently, and as part of the conversation. Huh. Hmm... do I erase the above now? Nahhh... I'll leave it.

Oh, and Lina, although I DON'T think it's the more likely case, I think it is quite possible that Jesus Christ (the living, breathing human) did not, in fact, exist and any evidence claiming he did was fabricated.

QUESTION: If science is an ongoing process constantly correcting and re-inventing itself, theorizing, proving theories, disproving theories, disputing previously "proven" theories... could the term "scientific fact" be an oxymoron?

EDIT: Waitaminute. FUCK! Ideas surrounding the semantics of the word "fact" have already been discussed. Now my whole damn post is redundant! Oh poopy...

Ignore me. I have nothing to add. I'm going to go visit Lina and eat leftover turkey and mashed potatoes...

 

[veil the sky]

This thread will never end...............good

In a very shallow sense, yes, this is true. People created religion as a way to answer questions about the universe and our existence. On the other hand, since we know it's so wildly inaccurate and unwilling to bend, is it really seeking to answer these questions truthfully -- or is it just an easy answer for weak-minded people who don't have the patience or curiosity to search for a more accurate answer?

I don't think religious philosophers lacked patience or curiosity, Descartes and Anselm for example. I think most regular people, religious or not, lack the patience and curiosity to answer genuine fundamental questions about human existence. Especialy in the modern age where everything is provided on a commercial basis. I think people would rather set up a direct debit and pay for wisdom.

Oh, and Lina, although I DON'T think it's the more likely case, I think it is quite possible that Jesus Christ (the living, breathing human) did not, in fact, exist and any evidence claiming he did was fabricated.

It is of course possible to maintain doubt over the very existence of Jesus whom they called Christ. But, to be consistent, you would have to maintain AT LEAST as much doubt over the existence of Julius Caesar, about whom there is less literary testament. People aren't so willing to doubt him because it doesn't serve to strengthen or weaken religious convictions and just appears unreasonable.

Come on over, there's plenty of leftovers!

mmmmm leftovers
drooooooooollllllllllll

 

[mindflesh]

Yay, another religion-war-thread!
Well, I'll add my crap:

Originally posted by veil the sky
It is of course possible to maintain doubt over the very existence of Jesus whom they called Christ. But, to be consistent, you would have to maintain AT LEAST as much doubt over the existence of Julius Caesar, about whom there is less literary testament. People aren't so willing to doubt him because it doesn't serve to strengthen or weaken religious convictions and just appears unreasonable.

Yeah, but I don't think anybody claims that Julius Caesar was able to walk over water or come back from the dead... I consider the possibility that Jesus existed, but if he did, he was an ordinary person who started something you would call a sect today; or maybe it's all made up, who knows...
If he existed, he was certainly idealized by his followers afterwards, when they wrote the bible - just like Caesar was idealized, but a lot less than Jesus, Caesar wasn't believed to be god's son, after all.

 

[Lina]

everybody go watch "from jesus to christ"!!!! consider it your duty this christmas. (how wonderfully blasphemous).

 

[Evisceratrix]

Originally posted by Lina

why thank you. not to get mushy, but i'll say it anyway -- there are people on this board with whom i sometimes disagree but who are open to a civilized debate, and you're one of them. i very much appreciate that. especially considering the rocky start we got off to!

and damn you! i was going to refute some of your post to satori, but then you sidetracked me with your sweetness. it's a conspiracy, i tell you!

couldnt have said it better myself! aww! ohhhh! that rocky start shit, ill alway feel a bit bad for that. and like you care-heh i havent bought a pack of smokes since then!

but yeah, go ahead and always feel free to refute my lame diatribes-just disregard my cleverly placed ass kissing! hehehe.


veil the sky-

Please, people, don't dismiss religious views about the universe as brainwashed ignorance. It doesn't always fly in the face of modern science. Blind belief in modern science, rather has taken up the bastion of arrogant unquestioning devotion and general intolerance. People always point to religious wars but forget that modern science creates weapons of mass destruction.

the entire post was so well spoken! ecxellent points!

Then he took out the leeches and said "These can cure anything you know"

hey they still use leeches! the leeches are mad and deject now cause you said that! the leeches RULE! haha. not really...i think i had a nightmare about lotsa leeches before and it wasnt so nice at all .


hoserhellspawn-

Satori, dude, she took a whole cross section of your points, ripped them apart, and you have failed to respond! What's going on?! Sure, none of the crap she spewed was any more "correct" than the crap you spew (or I spew, for that matter), but it sounded real good and convincing (which, really, in a debate, is the whole point. Facts mean nothing, they just make it easier - the more stubborn and/or convincing sounding person always "wins" the debate). Anyways, Evisceratrix, I applaud you.

thanks.....i think .....its not my intenet to win a debate- thats not the point.....i think satori is super smart and has some awesome ideas. i got really bitchy in that post.
i think he is plotting out some killer reply, but he is not replying yet because he is too busy imagining me in my sexy nurse uniform

i dont have a sexy nurse uniform.
what the fuck am i talking about?
AHHHHH

 

[Obyeybyeogone]

If I stated my thoughts here my supreme intelligence would cause this board to shut down and time would stop, so i'll keep my thoughts to myself.

 

[Tribal]

Just as X-tians argue about religion, evolutionist do the same. Here are some examples of people who believe in evolution but has problems with it.

Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel Prize winner for his work with chemistry wrote, " All of us who study the origin of life find the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.". Then later added, "We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine it did.", " I think that the fact that a theory so vauge, so insufficienty verifiable and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can be explained only on sociological grounds."
Then he later added " Darwin's theory said there must be millions of 'missing links', transitional life forms, would have to be found to prove this theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into a new species. But we have none.".

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Evisceratrix
thanks.....i think .....its not my intenet to win a debate- thats not the point.....i think satori is super smart and has some awesome ideas. i got really bitchy in that post.
i think he is plotting out some killer reply, but he is not replying yet because he is too busy imagining me in my sexy nurse uniform

i dont have a sexy nurse uniform.
what the fuck am i talking about?
AHHHHH

Can you send me a pic of you in your nurse uniform? It'll help me imagine better..heheh..

Sorry I haven't been involved in this discussion, I'm kinda busy with other shit right now, I shall return.

Satori

 

[veil the sky]

" I think that the fact that a theory so vauge, so insufficienty verifiable and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can be explained only on sociological grounds."

Yep, and that's why the religious believer who says that "God is the creative force behind the universe, but I couldn't tell you how." Isn't being any more or less 'rational' or 'factual' than the scientist who says "We came to be complex living beings purely by evolution from the chaos that preceded, but I couldn't tell you how."

There is a difference though, the scientist would say that although he couldn't tell you exactly how, there is an account which could do so, which is independantly verifiable. The religious believer would say, however, that limited human capacities are inadequate to express or understand how 'creation' happened. (You could, though, be a scientific anti-realist, like me, and argue that science does't in any case state fact, but postulates analogousy predictive models, so a better model might be possible, but it still wouldn't be factual.)


-Evisceratrix

the entire post was so well spoken! ecxellent points!

sniff,
awe you,

No seriously, thanks that's a lovely thing to say.
And thanks for contributing to my band's fledgeling forum, appreciate it.

Official DesolatioN Dominion

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Hannu Mutanen
A quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein: "Even though nothing scientifical can be said about it, morale is not insignificant".

In a conversation regarding the physical/observable origins of life, morale IS insignificant.

And what else is religion BUT morale and philosophy?

Lame, but true.

The purpose of religion is not to give scientifical verification to the existence of god or to negate the work of those who know what they are talking about.

Not everyone agrees with this. For many, religion DOES explain the origins of life.

Creationism is scientifically invalid since it is not generated through scholarship or research around the matter, but based on a human interpretation of a text contextually bound to a place and time in history - more specifically, a time when we had no knowledge of such matters.

Granted and agreed.

Scientists, however, should not deny the importance of religion just because it cannot say anything scientifical about our existence

When the focus of study IS scientific and pertaining to our existence, scientist can and SHOULD deny the importance of religion because it play absolutely no part in such a venture.

DNA researchers may not have the slightest clue as to what miniscule particles constitute the spiritual concept of 'morale'.

What the hell are you talking about? Miniscule particles constituting the spiritual concept of morale? We are talking about hard science here, not psychology, you have obviously confused the 2 beyond all recognition.

Conclusively, religion in itself IS NOT dumb or stupid.

Translation: to you personally, it is not dumb or stupid. But for many people around the world, blind faith in a myth is just that, dumb and stupid.

People have drawn stupid interpretations of religious ideas and will continue to do so.

Which is no surprise since religion itself IS a stupid interpretation.

To claim christianity to be based on mere myth, however, is to say Jesus did not exist.

Bullshit. I don't recall anyone disputing that Jesus existed, but, what does this have to do with this discussion? Nothing.

And regardless of whether or not this is true, much wisdom has been written and told in his name.

Lies are lies, bullshit is bullshit, myths are myths, there's also a great deal of wisdom in Alice in Wonderland, but I'm not going to dedicate my life to this story.

Surely much of what the Bible tells (being a collection of books by various authors) is bound to a place and time, but it holds some beautiful, universal thoughts that are not to be deemed unworthy just because they are brought out in the name of religion.

If it is your suggestion that we take the positive aspects of religions and use them in our society, I'm all for that, I do this myself, it's only when people (children) are mislead and exploited by means of their own beliefs/fear that I have a problem with it.

This chosen wisdom (--> leaving out obsolete ideas) constitutes a respectable idea of morale and ethics - what people have done for their own ends, using both religion and science as a means to accomplish them, is out of the question and no negation to their inherent value.

People don't need religion (blind faith in a scary myth) to be ethical, moral, or wise. I even think that religion greatly limits what we regard as "spirituality", and of course, I can write a book on why this is so (by the way, this is a very commonly held idea).

Science is the study of things as they present themselves. Ethics is the pursuit of a common good for all humans. They are 2 very different things and not to be confused as you appear to be doing.

I'm all for ethical responsibility, I'm just not into using lies to achieve it, I think there are better ways of going about controling the masses than twisting their minds with lies and using their own fears against them. That's just sick. I have too much love and respect for humans to even entertain the notion that this is a good idea.

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by veil the sky
There has been enough good philosophy of science in the past century (Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper) to suggest that we shouldn't be too hasty to regard scientific descriptions as factual assertions.

Which is why we shouldn't be at all concerned with what is actually "true" since we can never really know the truth about *anything*. We should concern ourselves only with what is most logical, practical, and verifiable (which is what I am doing).

We can't see evolution happening right now, it's not an independantly observable phenomena, we can only infer that evolution is how we came to be as we are now.

Actually, this is not the case at all. There are many examples of evolution that has occured in our life time. Here's an example I learned in grade 8:

There were moths living on some island with a dormant volcanoe. These moths had a defence against predation, their colour. They were green/light green in colour, camoflauged very well, perfectly suited to their environment. Then one day, as you may be guessed, the volcanoe erupted and spewed ash all over the island. Uh-oh, now the green moths are fucked, they will surely all be eaten by hungry predators now that they stand out against the dark ash like light-bulbs. But were they all eaten? No? Why not? They evolved, and here's how:

A small random (never seen before) mutation in this species of moth existed, an extremely recessive and anti-life giving characteristic of being born with a very dark grey-black pigment instead of the typical green pigment. Obviously, with the forest being green, this caused these moths to be gobbled up as soon as they were born, which is why we never saw this colour of moth and also why this characteristic was recessive (very few, if any, moths born black surivived to pass on their genes). Black moths are produced by a small genetic mutation, this is important, these moths were never meant/intended to be born black, it just happens, the same way that sometimes there are human babies born with no arms or twice the size of a normal baby (small genetic mutations), shit such as this happens all the time, sometimes they are bad (kids are born without arms) and sometimes they are good (kids are born very large and strong). Anyway, back to the moths. So the volcanoe erupts, everything is covered in black ash, and then just a few years later (which is quite a long time in moth years), pretty all the moths are black and as such have the ability to avoid being gobbled. That's evolution, and it was observed.

Evolution is characterized by small random mutations over successive generations. If these mutations turn out to not help the organism survive, it dies, if it turns out to be helpful, then the orgnism propagates because natural selection favours it. This is evolution, and it is happening right now, and it is totally observable as I have illustrated above. I'd think more people would be aware of this with all this talk about how anti-biotics are mutating/evolving bacteria and viruses which may potentially kill us. I guess not everyone is quite this informed about such matters.

The more I read here the more I see that people have an very rudimentary understanding of evolution that is more akin to what what held by people in the early part of the 1900's.

For reasons that aren't considered conclusive even now.

After reading the moth story, do you still think it's inconclusive? If so, how, and why?

Remember that observations are theory laden and when we recall what we think we see happening e.g. evolution, we are really stating what we believe about the empirical data we receive

Let's not get into a philosophical discussion about what constitutes subjectivity and such because it will just totally negate this whole conversation. For that matter, we can't conclusively prove the sky is blue, but we just accept that it is and move on.

e.g humans, we don't observe complex scietific theories in themsleves. Same with atoms, we don't 'know there are atoms,' we know there is observable phenomena in the world which the mental model of an atom predicts to our satisfaction.

Another outdated misconception from the mid 1900's. I recall as a child watching a show about how atoms were actually viewed with a powerful electron microscope, which I later learned about in high school. Also, IBM and a few other companies have written
things by placing single atoms one at a time (the smallest print in the world, which, as I'm sure you have heard about, they could print the entire encyclopidea brittainia on the back of a postage stamp). This is also something I heard about as a child, which leaves me to ask, how could so few people have heard about this? What the hell are they teaching kids in school these days?

The jesuits in the 16th century would have said that to say the world moved around the sun instead of vice versa was stupid because you can 'just see it.' It's the kind of dogmatic approach that causes racism and other forms of prejudice including the religious prejudice which goes on in forums.

Complete nonsense. Religious prejudice? Let's be serious for a moment: We aren't prejudiced against religion, we are "prejudiced" against scary myths, political lies, and people having their own highest hopes and darkest fears twisted and used against them for the primary purpose of mass control. Everyone should be prejudiced against such things, and everyone pretty much is, it's just that they can't see that religion IS one of these things.

Science DOES have qualities similar to supernatural religion in that it proposes to give a complete account of the universe. Scientific realism at any rate.

The sciences of evolution and cosmology have nothing to do with the supernatural.

Creation and evolution are not a dichotomy, there are plenty who hold strong religious convictions about the creative force behing the universe, and also accept that the evolutionary model originated by Darwin is predictively useful and consistent with biblical creation.

Oh yes, the new age religious types who are aware of that evolution is by FAR the best fit to the data but who still cling to the idea that the universe was created by some human-like thing for the purpose of eventually evolving humans which exist to kiss it's almighty ass. This is getting a little old and tiring, but at least such religious people realize that things have evolved natually through the basic forces present in the universe so their heads aren't completely up their asses, some light is getting through. But still, there is nothing noble or respectable about clinging to such myths.

I can come up with my own myth, let's see, hmm.. god is a big kitty cat who created the universe to evolve mice which it could then take pleasure in chasing and dominating. Do you like my myth? You must *believe* my myth, otherwise, the big kitty cat in the sky will claw your eyes out when you die. Bleh.

Please, people, don't dismiss religious views about the universe as brainwashed ignorance.

Oh please, give me a break. Why do you make such a plea? Are you in fact suggesting that religious views about the universe AREN'T brainwashed ignorance? If this is what you are suggesting, then I'm sure you can give us some examples of how it's not, how it's logical, observable, practical, etc. Please provide us with these examples, so far no one here has been able to defend relgion's model of creation with anything more than some stupid biblical quote, so I'm curious if you can do better.

It doesn't always fly in the face of modern science.

When we are talking about the bible and religion, it DOES. Please give us examples of when it does not.

Blind belief in modern science,

BLIND BELIEF? What planet are you living on? There is nothing blind about the sciences we are discussing. On the other hand, the religious views you appear to be defending are COMPLETELY blind (not to mention politically self-serving, implausible, idiotic), and I'm sure you can see this.

People always point to religious wars but forget that modern science creates weapons of mass destruction.

The fact that intellectual and technological evolution has created bigger and better weapons has nothing to do with this discussion because it does not place science into question. Technological evolution (science) has also given us fire, the wheel, spears, shelter, farming, fishing, medicine, etc, and all these things have helped us get to where we are today, we have evolved so far so fact because of technological evolution (science). Science/technological evolution does not purposefully mislead people, does not create wars, does not encourage idiots to become suicide bombers, does not scare people into behaving a certain way, does NOT insult their intelligence like religion does by actually expecting us to literally believe their bullshit.

Satori

 

[brightoffski]

I know I am now going way past the scope of just evolution in places here, but I think it is all worthy of discussion.

Originally posted by Satori

Evolution is characterized by small random mutations over successive generations.

Satori, the necessity of 'random' I am sure will not be lost on you. Since random is just a idealised concept manufactured by humans and hence nothing can ever be observed ideally (pragmatically through using finite sets on the condition that there is no feedback from previous results) as random, I think it is profound that their could be pattern to such mutations. (I am not suggesting the presence of a religious diety) This opens a Pandora's box...

Or even if the mutations have no pattern, then there is some kind of infinite randomness or finite dimension to all of this.
That is one part of evolution that I am fascinated by... :googly:
Sure, William Bateson provided foundation for the mutation as an evolutionary mechanism, but the plot thickens when you consider how a particular 'choice' be made over another 'choice'... (and this includes random which I do not discredit as a real possibility)

If these mutations turn out to not help the organism survive, it dies, if it turns out to be helpful, then the orgnism propagates because natural selection favours it. This is evolution, and it is happening right now, and it is totally observable as I have illustrated above. I'd think more people would be aware of this with all this talk about how anti-biotics are mutating/evolving bacteria and viruses which may potentially kill us. I guess not everyone is quite this informed about such matters.

The more I read here the more I see that people have an very rudimentary understanding of evolution that is more akin to what what held by people in the early part of the 1900's.

I am going to ignore this publicly.

After reading the moth story, do you still think it's inconclusive? If so, how, and why?

I think veil the sky was perhaps suggesting that despite our ability to observe these predictive models in action through specific examples, this can philosophically (even if subjectivity is dismissed for a moment) only be an empirical proof through inductive means. I don't think anyone is suggesting that evolution is not the most logical explanation we have created for such phenomena or that the above example is inconclusive for supporting the thereom.

Another outdated misconception from the mid 1900's. I recall as a child watching a show about how atoms were actually viewed with a powerful electron microscope, which I later learned about in high school. Also, IBM and a few other companies have written
things by placing single atoms one at a time (the smallest print in the world, which, as I'm sure you have heard about, they could print the entire encyclopidea brittainia on the back of a postage stamp). This is also something I heard about as a child, which leaves me to ask, how could so few people have heard about this? What the hell are they teaching kids in school these days?

I am aware of electron microscopes etc.
But I still haven't seen an atom. That doesn't mean I consider it an unworthy or unsatisfying model. It would void my professional knowledge if I did; or if I was 'forced' too believe a notion such as this. I would become redundant in a social sense, not to mention impacts on 'ego' and such. I don't think that this is completely detached from the scientific reasons that help me cling onto such models. You have to remember that humans can never seperate themselves from impacting on Scientific study, despite this being one of the fundamental notions of accurate experiment.

BLIND BELIEF? What planet are you living on? There is nothing blind about the sciences we are discussing. On the other hand, the religious views you appear to be defending are COMPLETELY blind (not to mention politically self-serving, implausible, idiotic), and I'm sure you can see this.

Alas, I am going to have to be provocative. Dispensing of religion once again...

We don't not have the practical individual capacity to embark upon a journey of validation through completing scientific proofs or verifying observations, so much has to be assumed to keep up. Some choose to believe (The general relatively uninformed public) in the general summaries that are shown to us through such channels as scientific publishing -> news media (if it is glamorous enough) if we are not to risk being considered archaic.

The point is, I find it interesting that much trust is still placed in these expert findings even when there is no slightest clue of how that conclusion was reached. Faith must be placed in the conventions and mechanisms of safe and ethical Science, even though it has proven extensively in the past that (despite the best of intellectual intentions) disastrous causal effects can occur. This is especially so when Science is placed in the hands of someone trying to seek the 'common good' via short term meddlings. This generally gets widespread support from the faction that is to benefit.

But I guess my main point is that blind belief in Science does exist via various social constructions.

 

[brightoffski]

Originally posted by Lina
Now this is what I'm talking about! I don't agree with some of the recent posts, but they're interesting to discuss and consider. My brain thanks you.

Ok, so I'm stuffed with turkey and mashed potatoes, but here I go...

Brightoffski, I think perhaps we are arguing sematics. I understand that you're warning us that if we had "closed the book" on atoms, we wouldn't have discovered smaller particles, and you're fearing that a complacent acceptance of our current idea of evolution would discourage us from delving deeper.

But I would just say that I doubt this would actually happen. The very heart of "science" is an inquiring mind -- I don't think a scientist on the verge of a great discovery would hide it from the world (unlike religion, scientists do not have to protect the status quo).

When I speak of "evolution," I'm not discussing any complex, deep subject. I'm speaking purely of the fact that species evolve over time, becoming (presumably) more and more efficient. This answers nothing about how the universe was created, nor does it attempt to. It doesn't tell us what the first creature on earth was, every species between now and then, nor what we will be in the future. It's simply an observable phenomenon in nature.

To say one "does not believe in evolution" is akin to saying one "does not believe in Jesus" -- both are factually incorrect: Jesus was a living person, and evolution is an observable process. When someone says they don't believe in Jesus, they most likely mean they don't believe he was the son of god or held any special divine powers. And when someone says they don't believe in evolution, I can only assume they mean they don't think it answers every question about our creation. But there's the catch -- IT'S NOT MEANT TO.

So I think that we basically agree in the end. Maybe?

OK, I have comments for Hannu, but I'll have to come back.

Yes Lina I think we basically do, I have nothing more really to say in this context. It has been a great discussion.