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. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.
Options
Comments
-
The Mad Hatter wrote: »In fairness, I don't think it is. Mickrock has, in point of fact, refused to state any position at all, preferring instead to say "but it's obviously not Darwinism, that doesn't make any sense." He has neither stated why he thinks it doesn't make sense, nor what alternative mechanism he thinks is causing evolution. This is why I think he's trolling.
Oh, it's pretty sure by his terminology of words like "kind", exactly where he is coming from.0 -
So you are just making **** up?
http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/P.Bentley/BEC6.pdf
The position you take on creativity in nature depends on your worldview. I would describe myself, based on this paper's summary, as a blend of an artist and a scientist.0 -
Seemed the best place for it.
This weeks issue of newscientist.
MISSING LINKS
EVOLUTION'S BIGGEST GAPS
AND HOW WE'RE CLOSING THEM.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
So you are just making **** up?
Obviously you can't keep up so this is becoming difficult.
Nature is spellbindingly creative, in terms of how we humans think of creative. I understand the argument that this can arise from random genetic events leading to evolution that just gives the appearance of creative. The challenge though is how creative humans themselves are, whether its art, music, architecture, sport, writing, drama, etc. What is the need for such creativity? Why would it even be retained in a blind undirected mechanism? What advantage in terms of reproduction is bestowed by the ability to compose music, paint works of art, write a great drama? Is it that these traits mean we can attract a mate easier? but that would suggest a purposeful reason.
Did you read the paper? How would you describe yourself.. let me guess.0 -
Maybe I did
They don't claim to be devout Christians, they are devout Christians.
They accept as factual everything in the bible.
Yup, for some it seems to be an historical document.
So lets walk that possibility with them.
They assert that "god" is not the cause of imperfection.
They assert that "god" created the possibility of imperfection (the historical/mythological fruit) but he gave fair warning not to eat it.
They assert that god remains perfect...humans are imperfect ..because of the fruit....and yet, will not deny that the fruit was the handiwork of god.
The only evidence for the handiwork of god ( according to their theology) would be the fruit.
It most certainly could not be imperfection. ( they claim god did not create imperfection).
I don't think "biblically based creationists" understand the full implications of their claims.
It's not just evolution that is off the table, from their position.0 -
Obviously you can't keep up so this is becoming difficult.
Nature is spellbindingly creative, in terms of how we humans think of creative. I understand the argument that this can arise from random genetic events leading to evolution that just gives the appearance of creative. The challenge though is how creative humans themselves are, whether its art, music, architecture, sport, writing, drama, etc. What is the need for such creativity? Why would it even be retained in a blind undirected mechanism? What advantage in terms of reproduction is bestowed by the ability to compose music, paint works of art, write a great drama? Is it that these traits mean we can attract a mate easier? but that would suggest a purposeful reason.
Did you read the paper? How would you describe yourself.. let me guess.
Er, did you read the paper? It is just musings on whether evolution, Darwinian evolution, could be considered creative under the various different definitions we have for creativity. And he comes to the conclusion that it can't really for the more detailed definitions, it can only be considered creative in the sense that any natural process can, such as the formation of a snow flake.
The paper has absolutely nothing to do with evolution "intelligently adapting to its environment" or evolution not being unguided.
So again, WTF are you talking about? Did you just panic and put the first Google response up?0 -
What is the need for such creativity? Why would it even be retained in a blind undirected mechanism? What advantage in terms of reproduction is bestowed by the ability to compose music, paint works of art, write a great drama? Is it that these traits mean we can attract a mate easier? but that would suggest a purposeful reason.
No - We can do all of the above and appreciate all of the above as a direct consequence of being extremely intelligent animals. Like a dog finds amusement in fetching a stick, we find amusement in music, art, and drama. We are simply a more socially advanced animal.0 -
you have lost your cause. Because you start banning people. JC is victim of your tyranny. Deadone is still fighting. With what mouth you are talking.. You cut people's tongues and then you think you have won.. You're a loser sarky, with all of your dogmas, with all of your creeds.. with all of your misery.... face the truth.. the moderators who are ruling in this foram are real world tyrant... they can't face truth.. they support you in propagating your religion but can't bear other people... I feel pity on all of converts here...:pac:
WOAH, hold the burgers there folks = Sarky can ban people?????? :eek:
Can you imagine the chaos in Dispute Resolution!:D0 -
Advertisement
-
I had a run-in with ISAW in there once. I like to think it went well.0
-
-
So again, WTF are you talking about? Did you just panic and put the first Google response up?
Yes, of course I panicked due to random musings of an anonymous internet poster, lol
You are the one with comprehension problems. You clearly did not understand the distinction between a scientific fact and a scientific theory, even after it had been explained to you several times. I see you have given up debating this point, do you understand the distinction now?
I posted the paper in response to your question on "intelligent creativity" to highlight the difficulty in defining certain concepts like creativity, something the author does very well. How an individual interprets the natural wold is determined by their worldview. Yours is that of an atheist with the typical atheist logical fallacy of assuming a scientific theory to be a scientific fact backing up their worldview.
The fact that you cannot see the distinction between the subjectivity of a worldview (an opinion or set of beliefs) as opposed to the objectivity of known facts makes debating the point with you literally impossible.0 -
Just a little quibble I have, nagirrac: There's no such thing as a scientific fact, at least not until we observe all observable things.0
-
Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »Just a little quibble I have, nagirrac: There's no such thing as a scientific fact, at least not until we observe all observable things.
Respectively I disagree. Scientists frequently refer to scientific facts. In this context a "fact" means something becomes so obvious from observation that there is no point testing it any further to demonstrate it exists. Biological evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact.
The mechanisms of biological evolution or gravity may not be fully understood but that they exist is a fact.0 -
Respectively I disagree. Scientists frequently refer to scientific facts. In this context a "fact" means something becomes so obvious from observation that there is no point testing it any further to demonstrate it exists. Biological evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact.
The mechanisms of biological evolution or gravity may not be fully understood but that they exist is a fact.
TBF though, they're still entirely subjective to things we have observed. For all we know, the could be a planet with repulsive gravity. You're free to use the terms as you wish, but as a student of science, it just bugs me when people use fact in place of theory :pac:0 -
Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »TBF though, they're still entirely subjective to things we have observed. For all we know, the could be a planet with repulsive gravity. You're free to use the terms as you wish, but as a student of science, it just bugs me when people use fact in place of theory :pac:
but as a student of science you see the distinction right?
I am not using fact in place of theory and I agree it is annoying when people use the terms interchangeably. A fact is something we have observed enough to accept beyond a reasonable doubt, a theory tries to explain the "how" i.e. the mechanism of how that something works.
We have seen nothing to my knowledge in the universe other than bodies attract each other and we call this gravity. We do not however have a unified theory that explains the mechanism of gravity.0 -
Yes, of course I panicked due to random musings of an anonymous internet poster, lol
Well you clearly didn't read that paper, nor is that paper anything to do with the questions I asked you that that paper was presented, by you, as a response to. This is why is is considered very bad form on this forum not to respond directly to questions. Posting a link that the person wastes time read but doesn't get any answers from is just a delaying tactic. From now on I'm ignoring replies by you where you do not attempted to answer the questions yourself.
You are the one with comprehension problems. You clearly did not understand the distinction between a scientific fact and a scientific theory, even after it had been explained to you several times. I see you have given up debating this point, do you understand the distinction now?
Well if by given up debating this point you mean explained in detail that evolution (which is a specific type of change) is not an observed fact since you cannot state the nature of change as evolutionary until you have method that makes it evolutionary, which we have in Darwinian evolution but no where else, then yes I've given up debating it since the most you could muster in response was to simple say evolution is change, a point I just corrected you on. I've given up debating it because the argument you used in response was the one I just refuted. Come up with a better one, or we can consider the matter closed.I posted the paper in response to your question on "intelligent creativity" to highlight the difficulty in defining certain concepts like creativity, something the author does very well.
So I ask you what the hell you are talking about by these terms and you post an article saying it is difficult to define these terms.
Ok, so why the heck are you using them. Or is the fact that they fuzzy and undefined and therefore you never have to actually explain yourself and your ridiculous statements, what appeals.
You seem to be admitting now that your sentences and the words in them are in fact meaningless.
Do you even know what you mean by these terms? Or do you just like how they sound when you say them out loud?0 -
Well if by given up debating this point you mean explained in detail that evolution (which is a specific type of change) is not an observed fact since you cannot state the nature of change as evolutionary until you have method that makes it evolutionary, which we have in Darwinian evolution but no where else, then yes I've given up debating it since the most you could muster in response was to simple say evolution is change, a point I just corrected you on. I've given up debating it because the argument you used in response was the one I just refuted. Come up with a better one, or we can consider the matter closed.
It is simply incomprehensible that you still cannot see the distinction.
The fact of evolution is "descent with modification" or common ancestry. Naturalists had understood this concept long before Darwin (including Darwin's own grandfather who inspired him). The evidence supporting evolution had been accumulating for centuries, and there were theories attempting to explain the mechanism of evolution before Darwin (Lamark for example, 50 years before Darwin).
Darwin's first great accomplishment was to study all the existing evidence, study nature in detail himself and establish evolution as a scientific fact (a scientific "fact" has a different meaning to the word "fact" in common usage). This evidence has nothing to do with the method of natural selection as the mechanism, the evidence is from morphology, the study of the form and structure of organisms, and the fossil record. Darwin need not have proposed natural selection at all and evolution would still be an accepted scientific fact due to the overwhelming statistical morphological and fossil evidence. This is what makes the creationist position so absurd, given the evidence.
The fact of evolution does not mean that the mechanism of natural selection is necessarily the driving force. This is where the creationist argument is not absurd because of course it could be God knob twiddling and natural selection just looks like the mechanism. It is the best scientific theory we have though and even today, 150 years after Darwin, no serious scientist would argue that it is not generally accepted as a major driver. What evolutionary biologists debate today is the contribution of other mechanisms, like random genetic drift, and whether there are mechanisms we have yet to discover.
In summary, denying evolution (descent by common ancestry) happened is absurd, debate about the mechanisms involved (natural selection, random genetic drift, something else, or a combination of many things) is not.0 -
We seem to be bickering amongst ourselves here. Has this thread run it's course yet?0
-
Advertisement
-
It is simply incomprehensible that you still cannot see the distinction.
The fact of evolution is "descent with modification" or common ancestry. Naturalists had understood this concept long before Darwin (including Darwin's own grandfather who inspired him). The evidence supporting evolution had been accumulating for centuries, and there were theories attempting to explain the mechanism of evolution before Darwin (Lamark for example, 50 years before Darwin).
Darwin's first great accomplishment was to study all the existing evidence, study nature in detail himself and establish evolution as a scientific fact (a scientific "fact" has a different meaning to the word "fact" in common usage). This evidence has nothing to do with the method of natural selection as the mechanism, the evidence is from morphology, the study of the form and structure of organisms, and the fossil record. Darwin need not have proposed natural selection at all and evolution would still be an accepted scientific fact due to the overwhelming statistical morphological and fossil evidence. This is what makes the creationist position so absurd, given the evidence.
The fact of evolution does not mean that the mechanism of natural selection is necessarily the driving force. This is where the creationist argument is not absurd because of course it could be God knob twiddling and natural selection just looks like the mechanism. It is the best scientific theory we have though and even today, 150 years after Darwin, no serious scientist would argue that it is not generally accepted as a major driver. What evolutionary biologists debate today is the contribution of other mechanisms, like random genetic drift, and whether there are mechanisms we have yet to discover.
In summary, denying evolution (descent by common ancestry) happened is absurd, debate about the mechanisms involved (natural selection, random genetic drift, something else, or a combination of many things) is not.
I don't know how many times you want me to re explain this to you, observation of change is not observation of evolution. You can suppose evolution is taking place, as Erasmus Darwin did, but without the process you cannot say it is, merely that change is taking place between generations. Evolution seperate to a method is not an observed fact. If it was preDarwinian biologists wouldn't be supposing and musing on its existence.
From thus meditating on the great similarity of the structure of the warm-blooded animals, and at the same time of the great changes they undergo both before and after their nativity; and by considering in how minute a portion of time many of the changes of animals above described have been produced; would it be too bold to imagine that, in the great length of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind would it be too bold to imagine that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions and associations, and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down these improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!
Erasmus Darwin
You don't ponder, imagine or suppose a scientific fact.0 -
Zombrex,
Are you trying to tell us that evolution has nothing to do with observation of change?
Are you drunk?
Ooopsss...sorrryyyy....process...i see what you're saying now.
process = a unifying principle ...as J.C. asserts
Or a method of change...as you assert.
You both agree on change whilst asserting something unchanging.0 -
I don't know how many times you want me to re explain this to you, observation of change is not observation of evolution. You can suppose evolution is taking place, as Erasmus Darwin did, but without the process you cannot say it is, merely that change is taking place between generations. Evolution seperate to a method is not an observed fact. If it was preDarwinian biologists wouldn't be supposing and musing on its existence.
I assume when you use the terms "process" and "method" you mean mechanism? If so, you are incorrect, evolution is an observed scientific fact independent of the mechanism involved.
Observation of change that is inherited is observation of evolution. If it wasn't for evolution why would any feature of an organism change? Species would just stay the same. In fact that was one of the first challenges with the theory of natural selection, Darwin's proposed mechanism of evolution. If natural selection just selected beneficial traits, over time the ideal traits for the species would be achieved and there would be no further change observed. It wasn't until the 1920s and the establishment of genetics that it was determined change at the individual organism level was random and continuous. Regardless of whether a species was well adapted or not, random mutations were still going to happen with favorable or unfavorable outcomes.
Clearly Darwin was responsible for establishing evolution as a scientific fact. However, you are doing pre-Darwinian biologists (or naturalists as they were called then) a disservice. Erasmus Darwin was a physicist and although well versed in various fields of science, did not contribute that much to evolutionary theory (other than inspiring his grandson). Although Lamark gets a bad rap for his proposed mechanism for evolution, his evidence for evolution is almost identical to Darwin's.
There are several other leading naturalists of the early 19th century who understood evolution in terms of functional changes to an organism that were inherited from generation to generation, small changes leading to large changes over time. Google "history of evolutionary thought", and read up on the theories proposed by various 19th century naturalists. Most are indistinguishable from Darwin other then the natural selection mechanism, and even there Alfred Russel Wallace proposed the same mechanism at the same time and prompted Darwin to publish Origin.
The naturalists that came before Darwin were not supposing or musing, they proposed theories based on observations of the simularities in form and structure between species, just as palentologists saw the same in earlier extinct species. It wasn't guesswork and it all laid the groundwork for Darwin who like all good scientists built on what came before him.0 -
Are you trying to tell us that evolution has nothing to do with observation of change?
Are you drunk?
Ooopsss...sorrryyyy....process...i see what you're saying now.
process = a unifying principle ...as J.C. asserts
Or a method of change...as you assert.
You both agree on change whilst asserting something unchanging.
Biological change can be easily observed, you simply compare the parent to the child and look at the differences.
You cannot say though that evolution is taking place, as opposed to simply random unstructured change, without identifying a process producing such evolution.
Neo-Darwinian evolution is currently the only supported process of evolution that we can say is taking place as part of this observed change. All other proposed methods of evolution, such as Lamarkian evolution, have been disproven.
It is therefore nonsensical to say that evolution is an observed fact separate to Darwinian evolution.0 -
I assume when you use the terms "process" and "method" you mean mechanism? If so, you are incorrect, evolution is an observed scientific fact independent of the mechanism involved.
Explain how one identifies that evolution is taking place between individual off spring as opposed to mere biological change, without appealing to Darwinian evolution.
No it is not.Observation of change that is inherited is observation of evolution.
If for example off spring were just randomly different to their parents that would not be evolutionary change.
There is no way to propose evolution is taking place without referencing Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution is what makes it evolution rather than mere change.
You seem to be using "change" and "evolution" interchangeably. That is a serious mistake.
Thank you for demonstrating my point. You phrase it as "wasn't for evolution", which identifies that there is a process at work here. Evolution is not the observed fact, it is a process explaining the observed fact, a process that requires a theory to explain it. It is not a question of what happened that tells us evolution is taking place (the off spring are different to their ancestors, so we know change is taking place) but why it is happening (the change is evolutionary because we know Darwinian evolution is taking place and explaining the change)If it wasn't for evolution why would any feature of an organism change?If natural selection just selected beneficial traits, over time the ideal traits for the species would be achieved and there would be no further change observed. It wasn't until the 1920s and the establishment of genetics that it was determined change at the individual organism level was random and continuous. Regardless of whether a species was well adapted or not, random mutations were still going to happen with favorable or unfavorable outcomes.
That really has nothing to do with what we are discussing (change vs evolution), but it is also wrong. If the environment never altered then species would eventually achieve a high level of adaption. Mutation that deviated from this adapted state would not be selected. It is not the random nature of genetic mutation that continues to drive evolution, but the constantly shifting environment that life finds itself in.Clearly Darwin was responsible for establishing evolution as a scientific fact. However, you are doing pre-Darwinian biologists (or naturalists as they were called then) a disservice. Erasmus Darwin was a physicist and although well versed in various fields of science, did not contribute that much to evolutionary theory (other than inspiring his grandson). Although Lamark gets a bad rap for his proposed mechanism for evolution, his evidence for evolution is almost identical to Darwin's.
Which again is nothing to do with the point. You claimed that evolution, distinct from Darwinian evolution, is an observed scientific fact. In other words we can all look at biological life and determine, without having to appeal to a theory of evolution (ie how this evolution takes place), that life is evolving, in the same way that we can all measure the distance from Boston to New York or take the temperature of liquid mercury.
That is not true. Evolution is a form of change, but all change is not evolutionary.
Until the process of evolution was identified all biologists could do was observe the scientific fact of change (that life slowly changed over the generations), and suppose that this change was some how evolutionary, even if they didn't understand how.0 -
zombrex, I honestly think you are still confusing the scientific fact of evolution with the specific theory of natural selection as the mechanism. Natural selection is one of 5 theories proposed by Darwin in the Origin of Species. The most significant theories of Darwin's at the time were common descent, multiplication of species, and gradualism. It was these three theories that led to evolution being accepted as scientific fact during Darwin's lifetime and not the mechanism of natural selection. His theory of natural selection, which is what you keep referencing, did not gain widespread acceptance until the 1920s when genetics was discovered.
I suspect we are now mainly talking past each other, let's try and get back to basics:
Defintion of biological evolution (from wiki but could be from any number of sources): Evolution is the change in inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evidence for evolution is mainly in the fossil record and in morphology (still true today as it was in Darwin's time). It was the work of naturalists and palentologists in the 19th century that provided the evidence for evolution, the largest contribution by far by Darwin himself. Darwin collected all the existing evidence, added the considerable evidence he had collected himself, and came up with a compelling theory of descent with modification from a common ancestor.
The modern definition of biological evolution adds the term "genetic" i.e. Evolution is a genetic change in a population that is inherited over successive generations. Evolution was accepted as a scientific fact during Darwin's lifetime, even though genetics was unknown to Darwin and scientists at the time (the work of Mendel was largly ignored). Genetics added to Darwin's theory of natural selection gave the mechanism for how evolution progressed (at least until random genetic drift as another mechanism was discovered).
I agree with you that biological change over time is not necessarily evolutionary, it is only evolutionary if these are heritable changes that are passed on from generation to generation.
Getting back to the distinction between the scientific fact of evolution and the scientific mechanism of evolution, think about it in terms of gravity. Gravity has been observed enough to regard it as a scientific fact. Apples do not fall up, planets orbit the sun, etc. However, we have no agreed theory as yet for the mechanism of gravity. The fact that we do not have a theory for the mechanism does not prevent gravity being a scientifically observed fact.0 -
The "hardcore" atheists who tend to post on this thread seem deeply wedded to the unintelligent material processes of abiogenesis/Darwinism to explain life.
Surely those of you who fall into this category must feel a strong sense of cognitive dissonance when considering the nanotechnology and intricate molecular machinery at the cellular level and how unintelligent processes could have brought them about.
Michael Behe's idea of Irreducible Complexity (which Darwin himself originally put forward) must be particularly troubling and disconcerting for you. Of course, it will blithely be stated that it has been discredited and refuted. Nothing could be further from the truth and, if anything, the basis for Irreducible Complexity has grown stronger over time.
Here is a summary of why IC has not been refuted:
http://www.discovery.org/a/34080 -
you really should read the excellent material/information oldrnwisr posted for you. He addresses the topic of complexity in that post.
EDIT: and it would be nice if you could put forward an alternative idea as to how life came to be/evolved on this planet.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
At the Dover trial, Michael Behe admitted that ID (and therefore, IC) was every bit as scientific as astrology -- I'm not really troubled by makey-uppey stuff, though I do find admissions like that entertainingly honest.Michael Behe's idea of Irreducible Complexity (which Darwin himself originally put forward) must be particularly troubling and disconcerting for you.
Otherwise, well, go read what oldrnwisr has written instead of just repeating yourself all the time.0 -
Advertisement
-
You seem to be using "change" and "evolution" interchangeably. That is a serious mistake.
That is not true. Evolution is a form of change, but all change is not evolutionary.
Until the process of evolution was identified all biologists could do was observe the scientific fact of change (that life slowly changed over the generations), and suppose that this change was some how evolutionary, even if they didn't understand how.
Hi Zombrex,
I think i might be missing your point here. I don't quite get your distinction between mere change and evolution.
My understanding was that change from generation to generation, was just that - change. No driving force to speak of, some changes were helpfull, some neutral and some a hindrance. The changes that just happened to provide a survival or reproductive advantage were, over the course of time more likely to continue on down the generations for fairly obvious reasons, these changes gradually became more and more common due to interbreeding and eventually became a trait of the species, maybe even a defining trait - ie a new distinct species.
Evolution tends to favour changes that are helpfull, simply because those changes make it more likely that genes will be passed down the line, however species also become extinct all the time merely because evolution has led them down a cul de sac. Ce la vie.0
Advertisement