Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…328329330332334

Comments

  • Options
    #9932
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    nagirrac wrote: »

    Don't be silly :) The human brain did not evolve to where it is today from a bunch of processes colliding together. This is one of the biggest challenges understanding evolution, which is thought to be an incredible slow process. It took 5 million years for the joint ancestor of chimps and humans to become homo sapiens sapiens, and yet in 10,000 years we have gone from hunter gatherers to what we are today. All of that is due to brain development, and the processes underlying such development are just being uncovered and poorly understood. This is one of the reasons why there is so much confusion on the data coming from the ENCODE project, it takes a lot of programming to build a human brain.

    Atheists love to say there's nothing special about humans. To that I would say show me the other species on earth that has composed Beethoven's 9th symphony, written The Brothers Karamazov, painted Guernica, and gone to the moon and back. Its intelligence my dear Watson, not random banging together of molecules.

    In fairness most of the changes in the last 10,000 years have been cultural, technological and general behaviour...
    We're not super massively smarter than say the people living in the Chalcolithic or even earlier, we just know more (and know how to teach our kids more, faster)...
    We spent a long time just faffing about as huntergatherers before this whole modern era took off...


  • Options
    #9933
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Its intelligence my dear Watson, not random banging together of molecules.
    Can you please define what you mean by the word "intelligence"?


  • Options
    #9934
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    kiffer wrote: »
    In fairness most of the changes in the last 10,000 years have been cultural, technological and general behaviour...
    We're not super massively smarter than say the people living in the Chalcolithic or even earlier, we just know more (and know how to teach our kids more, faster)...
    We spent a long time just faffing about as huntergatherers before this whole modern era took off...

    I remember the Science of Discworld books used the word extelligence to describe how humans have changed in the last few thousand years.

    It's more to do with the cultures and societies we've created and how they shape a person as they grow up, and how they interact with other cultures and societies, that has really sped up what we call our technological advancement. A society is to all intents and purposes a living creature all its own that competes with other societies, mates with some, gets infected with memes from the outside (or changed by memes from within in a sort of autoimmune disease analogy), and directs the purpose and function of the people within (Most people in a given society tend to have similar outloooks, and their knowledge is informed by their cultural heritage; a joke about Mohammed over here is grounds for bloodshed in another part of the world).

    Culture shock isn't really much of a thing any more, not because people have evolved to deal with it, but because societies have intermingled so much that they all share some common "genes". Although, you take an isolated pygmy tribe and plonk them on, say, Oxford Street in the middle of London, you'll see plenty of culture shock. Their society is effectively a whole different species because it's stayed seperate for so long.


  • Options
    #9935
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Ten interesting developments from the last few years in evolutionary science.

    http://listverse.com/2013/02/05/10-significant-recent-evolutionary-discoveries/


  • Options
    #9936
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Instinct is inherited intelligence.

    You still haven't defined intelligence for me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9937
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Tell that to the meagre Staph. aureus, set to bring down humanity in a generation.

    He spits on your Beethoven's 9th.

    You should have more faith in your profession than that:)

    There is no question much of the human population could be taken down by an organism. At the unsustainable rate we are expanding our population however, is it not arguable that it could be the best thing for our longer term survival prospects?


  • Options
    #9938
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    robindch wrote: »
    Ten interesting developments from the last few years in evolutionary science.

    http://listverse.com/2013/02/05/10-significant-recent-evolutionary-discoveries/

    "The theory of evolution via natural selection completely transformed the world of science 150 years ago and its ramifications rippled across all aspects of life, including politics and religion. It is as well accepted in the world of biology as the Earth orbiting the Sun is in astronomy"

    What a load of specious nonsence.


  • Options
    #9939
    Ziphius
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    mickrock wrote: »
    "The theory of evolution via natural selection completely transformed the world of science 150 years ago and its ramifications rippled across all aspects of life, including politics and religion. It is as well accepted in the world of biology as the Earth orbiting the Sun is in astronomy"

    What a load of specious nonsence.

    You're a geocentrist too mickrock?


  • Options
    #9940
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Ziphius wrote: »
    You're a geocentrist too mickrock?

    No, it's just the way I walk.


  • Options
    #9941
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Ziphius wrote: »
    What you term 'intelligence' just seems like plain old adaptation.

    Although, perhaps, you should give us a clear definition of what you mean by the word and some real world examples.

    In this case yes, but I believe adaptation is intelligent.

    In general terms I would say intelligence is something that displays a cognitive process. I believe we see cognitive processes in all life, from the microbe on up. The human brain is the most obvious real world example.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9942
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Sarky wrote: »

    I remember the Science of Discworld books used the word extelligence to describe how humans have changed in the last few thousand years.

    It's more to do with the cultures and societies we've created and how they shape a person as they grow up, and how they interact with other cultures and societies, that has really sped up what we call our technological advancement. A society is to all intents and purposes a living creature all its own that competes with other societies, mates with some, gets infected with memes from the outside (or changed by memes from within in a sort of autoimmune disease analogy), and directs the purpose and function of the people within (Most people in a given society tend to have similar outloooks, and their knowledge is informed by their cultural heritage; a joke about Mohammed over here is grounds for bloodshed in another part of the world).

    Also snowcrash. ;)
    Don't read Darwin's Radio... actually do... it's crazy.
    Culture shock isn't really much of a thing any more, not because people have evolved to deal with it, but because societies have intermingled so much that they all share some common "genes". Although, you take an isolated pygmy tribe and plonk them on, say, Oxford Street in the middle of London, you'll see plenty of culture shock. Their society is effectively a whole different species because it's stayed seperate for so long.

    I think culture shock is a live and well... but many people have been inoculated somewhat so they only get a mild dose... I still can't get tipping right in the states, I spend days were I totally forget to tip and then the next day over tip and try to tip people who probably don't need tipping.
    I see thread's on the tLL with women being told "why is you boyfriend making you dinner? Where I'm from women do all thr cooking, it doesn't matter that you've worked all day and he's been home... you're a bad GF"...
    There's lots of crashing cultures and memes but the introduction of "Foreigners with ways different to our own, give them time to adjust" softens the impact.
    Or am I crazy?


  • Options
    #9943
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    You're veering dangerously close to arguing that intelligence is somehow worthwhile, useful or desirable from an evolutionary perspective. Nature doesn't give a crap about impressionists or astronauts or composers. It simply favours those creatures which are well adapted to their environment. Like crocodiles for example. Here they are, pretty much unchanged for the last 300 million years because they're really good at exploiting the environment they live in. Do you think humans will still be around (in a manner similar to crocodiles) in 300 million years time?

    No, I think humans will be around in 300 million years but nothing like the humans we know of today. Just like the humans of today are nothing like the humans of 10,000 years ago, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Humans are evolving cognatively, not physically, although there will be a time and likely fairly soon where we will have to evolve physically but it will be by different mechanisms. Within a few decades we will understand completely how the human genome works and once that is complete we will be building replicas that are much more robust.


  • Options
    #9944
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    If humans are so clever, just leave a few of them stranded without outside help and they will not survive. How many human women would like to give birth unaided as most mammals do. Humans have a lot to learn.

    How did huminids survive for a million years? How did human women give birth for 100,000 years before we had hospitals?


  • Options
    #9945
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    "The theory of evolution via natural selection completely transformed the world of science 150 years ago and its ramifications rippled across all aspects of life, including politics and religion. It is as well accepted in the world of biology as the Earth orbiting the Sun is in astronomy"

    What a load of specious nonsence.
    It's quite true -- amongst professional biologists and people who've studied biology, evolution is understood and accepted about as much as the Earth orbiting the Sun is accepted amongst professional astronomers.

    The only people who've a problem with evolution are the people who don't make any effort to learn anything about it.


  • Options
    #9946
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    nagirrac wrote: »
    In this case yes, but I believe adaptation is intelligent. In general terms I would say intelligence is something that displays a cognitive process. I believe we see cognitive processes in all life, from the microbe on up. The human brain is the most obvious real world example.
    Can you please define "cognitive process"?


  • Options
    #9947
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    robindch wrote: »
    The only people who've a problem with evolution are the people who don't make any effort to learn anything about it.

    And when you go to all the trouble of showing them evidence, and teaching them the basics, they make no effort to acknowledge it. They're just not interested in rising above their ignorance :(


  • Options
    #9948
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Sarky wrote: »
    Brains are interesting, fragile things, they "evolve" from a generic stem cell to a network of millions of neurons in the space of a few years. They don't actually require all that much "programming", they mostly develop from learning and experiencing.

    But they're very susceptible to the slightest damage. If they weren't, there wouldn't be psychiatric therapy, mental illness, severe learning disabilities, and all the other things on a near-endless list of bad things that can happen a brain. To use your programming analogy, they're more full of bugs than any application ever released by a software company. If they're programmed by someone, they did a sloppy job of it.

    Again, if you don't believe me, try altering some of the processes by taking a couple of legal drugs.

    I am quite familair with the effect of various mind altering legal and not so legal drugs:)

    I agree brains are very interesting. They are incredibly interesting in the developing fetus and first year, a mind boggling array of neurons and connections between neurons, many trillions of them. That is the amazing design. How this vast landscape gets programmed genetically and by environment is also fascinating, but the majority of bugs as you call them, sadly, are due to environment and upbringing.


  • Options
    #9949
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    "Please define intelligence."

    "Please define information."

    "Please define complexity."


    You hear a lot of this around here. They're fairly straightforward concepts but people who have faith in abiogenesis/Darwinism often seem to use them as dodges.

    For example, if asked how the digital information in DNA can be explained by chance and/or material processes, the inevitable response will be for a definition of information.


  • Options
    #9950
    Doctor Strange
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭Doctor Strange


    mickrock wrote: »
    "Please define intelligence."

    "Please define information."

    "Please define complexity."


    You hear a lot of this around here. They're fairly straightforward concepts but people who have faith in abiogenesis/Darwinism often seem to use them as dodges.

    For example, if asked how the digital information in DNA can be explained by chance and/or material processes, the inevitable response will be for a definition of information.

    Define irony :pac:

    Seriously, we've provided so much information to you, that you in turn regularly ignore. I for one won't be entertaining your refusal to engage in proper debate any more.


  • Options
    #9951
    darjeeling
    Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    Counting down to 10,000 posts...

    How will it end? Will Darwin get the girl? Will the dog turn up alive? Will there be a sequel? :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9952
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    robindch wrote: »
    Can you please define "cognitive process"?

    Will we eventually get to the point where I have to define the alphabet?

    a composite from the free Dictionary: "the process of obtaining and storing knowledge and putting it to use"

    whats next? what is knowledge?


  • Options
    #9953
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    There is one thing that puzzles me about creationist theory. Adam and Eve and all that. Where did the next generation come from. There were the 3 sons of Adam and Eve. One of them murdered the other. So that left 2 males. Did they mate with their mother or what.


  • Options
    #9954
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    nagirrac wrote: »

    Will we eventually get to the point where I have to define the alphabet?

    a composite from the free Dictionary: "the process of obtaining and storing knowledge and putting it to use"

    whats next? what is knowledge?

    Stop using words one way for an argument when in the context of that topic they mean something else, then.


  • Options
    #9955
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    darjeeling wrote: »
    Counting down to 10,000 posts...

    How will it end? Will Darwin get the girl? Will the dog turn up alive? Will there be a sequel? :eek:

    Surprise twist- J C shows up to finally apologise.


  • Options
    #9956
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    We don't have "known" natural processes that account for life so you should stop saying it as repeating it won't be true. I have no doubt that there are natural processes that account for life and expect that we will eventually understand them.

    We have known natural processes that can account for life. We don't, and possibly will never know, which of them is responsible for life on Earth because little to know evidence remains of the origins of Earth. But the important thing is that we know this can happen by natural process, no divine intervention required.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The reason to introduce intelligence is that everywhere we look in the natural world we see intelligence. How this intelligence arose is the interesting question, not whether it exists or not.
    It arose through evolutionary processes. Which raises the question, if a divine creator exists how did it's intelligence arise?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I know its controversial to say on this forum but my belief is that all life is intelligent and uses intelligence to adapt to its environment.

    Based on what?

    Life adapt to the environment through mutation and natural selection. There is no evidence that the organism in the now can manipulate this process. This was once considered along side Darwinian evolution, but was rejected due to lack of evidence.

    So I have to ask again, what do you base that belief on?


  • Options
    #9957
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    mickrock wrote: »
    "The theory of evolution via natural selection completely transformed the world of science 150 years ago and its ramifications rippled across all aspects of life, including politics and religion. It is as well accepted in the world of biology as the Earth orbiting the Sun is in astronomy"

    What a load of specious nonsence.

    There are people who believe the world if flat, ignoring all the evidence otherwise.

    There are people who believe the Earth is the centre of the solar system and all the planets and the Sun go around it, ignoring all the evidence otherwise.

    There are people who believe Darwinian evolution is nonsense, ignoring all the evidence otherwise.

    We can happily put all these people into the same set of silliness.


  • Options
    #9958
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    We have known natural processes that can account for life. We don't, and possibly will never know, which of them is responsible for life on Earth because little to know evidence remains of the origins of Earth. But the important thing is that we know this can happen by natural process, no divine intervention required.

    If we have no evidence, how do we know how life emerged? I also believe life came from natural processes but we do not understand the natural processes involved, so its a circular argument.

    The rest of your questions I have answered in previous posts.


  • Options
    #9959
    darjeeling
    Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    Sarky wrote: »
    Surprise twist- J C shows up to finally apologise.

    Someone send her a PM or she'll miss her big moment.


  • Options
    #9960
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    mickrock wrote: »
    "Please define intelligence."

    "Please define information."

    "Please define complexity."


    You hear a lot of this around here. They're fairly straightforward concepts

    Then they should be easy to define.

    Yet for some reason people are very reluctant to actually do that.

    It is almost as if these words are kept intentionally vague so that they can be used as a go too rejection of any and all evidence presented for evolution. Whats that, you have evidence that evolution can do X, ah yes but can it increase "complexity", can it produce "information, no I'm not going to define those terms so you can actually answer the question!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9961
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    This thread requires an epic score for the final 38 posts.... The end is nigh!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl5McGN2L-E

    One of the most educational topics around but at the same time, it can be completely mad and idiotic.....


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement