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"

1…310311313315316…328

Comments

  • #9362
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Mickrock - Care to answer a few questions, since you're very loose on substance in your posts?
    • Why do humans have a Coccyx and what is it's function?
    • Why do humans and all other members of Haplorhini (A group of primates which includes humans) share the exact same pseudogene - GLO?
    • Can you tell me which members of the Homo genus are 'man', and which are not.
    • Can you give me a scientific description of the term 'kind'.
    • Can you now compare and contrast that description against the term 'species'.

    1. I don't know
    2. I don't know
    3. No
    4. No
    5. No

    What's your point?


  • #9363
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    mickrock wrote: »
    1. I don't know
    2. I don't know
    3. No
    4. No
    5. No

    What's your point?

    You have made dlofnep's point. Well done. Please accept this invisible star.


  • #9364
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Sarky wrote: »
    A quick Google was inspired by mickrock's amusing assertion that random changes can't produce anything new. Here's a handy little listing I found of various ways in which science has used the process of evolution for its own purposes. They used genetic algorithms, essentially little computer programs or electronic circuits that change randomly over several generations, with some selective pressure based on what we want to get out of it. Thanks to the power of natural selection, we know know the best way to construct antennae and load-bearing trusses, we know the shape to make a concert hall for the best acoustics, and so very much more.

    If you have a goal or target then it doesn't mimic Darwinian evolution.


  • #9365
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sarky wrote: »
    They used genetic algorithms, essentially little computer programs or electronic circuits that change randomly over several generations, with some selective pressure based on what we want to get out of it.
    Unsurprisingly, creationists don't accept that this is evolution or that it's parallel to evolution.

    Instead, creationists will claim that since the evolutionary framework (the electronics) has been designed by humans, therefore, the evolution of electronic circuits etc is evidence for ID, not evolution. Or that since there was a goal, that the goal was intentional, hence the process was "intelligently directed" and therefore, not evolution.

    And requoting from a few years back: I think it's in the introduction to Volume One of Bill Hamilton's Narrow Roads of Gene Land that Hamilton mentioned that as he got older, he began to suspect that a significant portion of the population suffered from a cognitive impairment which rendered them incapable of ever being able to understand evolution, regardless of how simply it was explained to them.


  • #9366
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    mickrock wrote: »
    1. I don't know
    2. I don't know
    3. No
    4. No
    5. No

    What's your point?

    It would have been relatively easy to answer the first with just a guess. If you think about what term Americans use for the coccyx, it's obvious.

    But that's not the point. Are you happy with these answers? Happy not to know? Despite them being presented to you as potential confounders of your belief system, you chose to not even Google.


  • Advertisement
  • #9367
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    If you have a goal or target then it doesn't mimic Darwinian evolution.
    ^^^ I rest my case.

    Creationists, and many others too, seem to have intractable problems differentiating between an unintentional goal and an intentional one.

    It's the teleological fallacy which itself, appears to derive from an oversensitive sense of agency detection. The only way around that is awareness of the fallacy, awareness of the misfiring sense and perhaps training.


  • #9368
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,452 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    mickrock wrote: »
    1. I don't know
    2. I don't know
    3. No
    4. No
    5. No

    What's your point?
    Dilemma. If you could answer Dlofnep's questions, you couldn't honestly ask what his point is. And this thread would be a lot shorter.

    There are none so blind...


  • #9369
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Dades wrote: »
    There are two types of people that don't accept evolution: those that don't understand it, and those that don't want to.

    Of course it's possible to be both.
    Beruthiel wrote: »
    It is inconceivable to me that someone would want to remain in that state.
    Me too. The amount of stuff I don't understand drives me mental. I don't understand how someone can be happy not knowing everything about everything.
    mickrock wrote: »
    If you have a goal or target then it doesn't mimic Darwinian evolution.

    Isn't 'survival' the "goal" of Darwinian evolution?


  • #9370
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,452 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    kylith wrote: »
    Isn't 'survival' the "goal" of Darwinian evolution?
    Of the individual? Probably not. That's the goal of the individual.
    Of the gene? Probably to the point of almost, but not quite, definitely. To the best of our understanding at this point.*










    *as always, open to correction. McRockian evolution anybody?


  • #9371
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    robindch wrote: »
    Creationists, and many others too, seem to have intractable problems differentiating between an unintentional goal and an intentional one.

    An unintentional goal is an oxymoron.


  • Advertisement
  • #9372
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    kylith wrote: »
    Isn't 'survival' the "goal" of Darwinian evolution?
    More likely "reproduction". At any cost. Survival or not.

    See the lowly male mantis, headless yet all the more vigorous for it, such is his desperation to impregnate the female.


  • #9373
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    mickrock wrote: »
    If you have a goal or target then it doesn't mimic Darwinian evolution.

    It does. With the antenna for example, it was a selective pressure that just happened to be one NASA found useful. The programs mutated blindly and without direction in an environment of "a more efficient antenna design is better equipped to survive". And so the algorithms mutated and interbred and chopped and changed, and eventually a design emerged that was way more efficient than anything the engineers at NASA could have designed on their own.

    If they had been looking for an antenna that only picked up a specific frequency, the design would have evolved to do that. If the design had been looking for antennae that were less than 10 inches long and spiral shaped, the design would have evolved into a short spiral. That it was a goal set by engineers doesn't matter. The point is that if a selective pressure is applied to a population, it evolves to adapt to that pressure, whether it's an oxygen-rich environment or a requirement to pick up long-wave radio. Evolution happens just like that.

    You may not agree, but that doesn't make you right.


  • #9374
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,452 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    mickrock wrote: »
    An unintentional goal is an oxymoron.
    Like these? Don't know about the 'oxy' part...



  • #9375
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,452 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    doctoremma wrote: »
    More likely "reproduction". At any cost. Survival or not.

    See the lowly male human, legless yet all the more vigorous for it, such is his desperation to impregnate the female.
    Works for Temple Bar too.


  • #9376
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    doctoremma wrote: »
    More likely "reproduction". At any cost. Survival or not.

    OK. Survive, reproduce. Sounds like a decent goal to me.


  • #9377
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    endacl wrote: »
    Dilemma. If you could answer Dlofnep's questions, you couldn't honestly ask what his point is. And this thread would be a lot shorter.

    There are none so blind...

    Would you or anyone else care to enlighten me on the point of dlofnep's little quiz?


  • #9378
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    An unintentional goal is an oxymoron.
    In evolution, there are no such things as "goals". There are just things that happen to do certain jobs with a greater or lesser degree of efficiency.

    You're the one who believe that these constitute (a) "goals" and you're also the one that believe that these can (a) only be (c) "intentional".

    Each of (a), (b) and (c) in the preceding is a massive and very faulty assumption on your part.


  • #9379
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    mickrock wrote: »
    Would you or anyone else care to enlighten me on the point of dlofnep's little quiz?

    I'll give it a shot.

    In an earlier post you made this comment:
    mickrock wrote: »
    I can't think of any evidence for Darwinian evolution.

    which shows that your whole argument is based on ignorance of the topic at hand.

    Moreover, your previous comments in this thread have demonstrated that you are also arguing for a false dilemma, that if evolution is wrong then it must have been directed/guided by an intelligence.

    The point of dlofnep's questions (IMO) is that not only can you not show why the evolutionary explanation is wrong, neither can you offer any alternative explanation of these observations in a way which fits the available evidence.


  • #9380
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    Would you or anyone else care to enlighten me on the point of dlofnep's little quiz?
    To establish whether you have any interest in learning something about what you so clearly know little or nothing about.

    On the available evidence, it seems not, though we'd be interested and happy to learn otherwise.


  • #9381
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Even if he refuses to learn, his tragic lack of understanding is a great springboard for others to share their knowledge with people who ARE interested. Some day we can take this thread, remove every one of J C's and dead one's and mickrock's posts, and the amount of fascinating knowledge left will be a beautiful thing indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #9382
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    The point of dlofnep's questions (IMO) is that not only can you not show why the evolutionary explanation is wrong, neither can you offer any alternative explanation of these observations in a way which fits the available evidence.

    The onus is on Darwinists to prove the theory can explain what it claims to.

    As far as I can see, evolution is just assumed to have happened by Darwinian means. It's almost accepted as a self evident truth.


  • #9383
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You're not looking very far then. Try harder. We've provided shedloads of evidence in this thread.


  • #9384
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,042 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    mickrock wrote: »
    The onus is on Darwinists to prove the theory can explain what it claims to.

    As far as I can see, evolution is just assumed to have happened by Darwinian means. It's almost accepted as a self evident truth.

    and why is there no onus on you to prove your claims? You could at least try to participate in the standard that you yourself demand. It's just good manners.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #9385
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sarky wrote: »
    [...] the amount of fascinating knowledge left will be a beautiful thing indeed.
    Couldn't agree more -- this thread has been an eye-opener on so many levels for me anyway.

    Thanks to everybody who contributes their time and knowledge.


  • #9386
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,452 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    mickrock wrote: »
    The onus is on Darwinists to prove the theory can explain what it claims to.

    As far as I can see, evolution is just assumed to have happened by Darwinian means. It's almost accepted as a self evident truth.
    I'm not a 'Darwinist'. I just accept it as the best explanation I've come across thus far. The mechanism makes sense, and is demonstrable. (Don't ask for examples.There's a thread full of that.)

    I'm open to a better explanation. If you have one, fire away.


  • #9387
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    The onus is on Darwinists to prove the theory can explain what it claims to.
    It's been explained to you in bite-sized pieces and you don't appear to be interested in making an honest effort to understand any of it. If you are interested in learning, then please say so.

    BTW, you made a claim earlier on today and you were asked to justify it or withdraw it -- please do so.


  • #9388
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Sarky wrote: »
    Some day we can take this thread, remove every one of J C's and dead one's mickrock's posts

    We should do that asap!

    We shall soon be reaching the 10k user comments cut off point.
    You know what that means.....


  • #9389
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    mickrock wrote: »
    The onus is on Darwinists to prove the theory can explain what it claims to.

    As far as I can see, evolution is just assumed to have happened by Darwinian means. It's almost accepted as a self evident truth.

    You still don't understand what theory means in science do you? A theory is never proven because it is not a mathematical construct. It is an explanatory framework which seeks to distill a number of observed facts into a coherent explanation. It's not a guess or a hunch.

    However, insofar as natural selection is a positive claim in debating terms, this thread is filled with pages of posts detailing the evidence for natural selection as well as innumerable scientific papers to support the claim. You seem to be unwilling or incapable to acknowledge this fact, however, since you have made no attempt to point out any flaws in any of the evidence presented. You just keep repeating the same soundbite over and over as if, somehow, people will eventually just accept it.

    Finally, no, evolution wasn't just assumed to have occurred. It has survived the crucible of scientific rigour. 150 years of experimentation, peer-review and a mountain of evidence like you wouldn't believe has given evolution credibility not because it's easier to assume that it's correct because it isn't.


  • #9390
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Good point Beruthiel. Hopefully robin/Dades can apply a "survival of the fittest"* approach to the thread. It would likely half in size if J C's crap alone was weeded out...


    *Yes, I know it's technically inaccurate, but it feels appropriate.


  • Advertisement
  • #9391
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    The person that gets the 10,000th post wins the thread? Settling the argument once and for all.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement