Darwin's theory

iDave · 17-10-2014 04:18PM

Guys another question from someone from a non-scientific background.
Is the relationship between birds and dinosaurs so close to suggest that dinosaurs never truly went extinct? What I mean is, are birds so close we could class them as dinosaurs and the only difference is their name?

Sorry if that might sound like a silly question to ask but I'm just trying to get as decent an understanding as possible without becoming a scientist myself.

sheesh · 17-10-2014 04:28PM

some would refer to them as dinosaurs but they have been evolving since the time of the dinosaurs descendants of the dinosaurs they are their own class of animal now it is believed that some dinosaurs were cold blooded but all modern birds are warmed blooded so I do not think they are referred to as dinosaurs

Knasher · 17-10-2014 04:45PM

sheesh wrote: »

some would refer to them as dinosaurs but they have been evolving since the time of the dinosaurs descendants of the dinosaurs they are their own class of animal now it is believed that some dinosaurs were cold blooded but all modern birds are warmed blooded so I do not think they are referred to as dinosaurs

Well to put it scientifically, they are in the same clade, Dinosauria. A subset of that clade called Avetheropoda contains both birds and dinosaurs like the T-Rex. Then a subset of that clade, Coelurosauria, contain birds and Velociraptor, and so on till you get to the clade Avialae, which is just birds.

Brian Shanahan · 17-10-2014 04:57PM

Cianmcliam wrote: »

In theory it sounds plausible, however I just can't see how the math can stack up on this. Take the hypothesis discussed earlier in the thread, that a set of genes that contributed to having a gay male child might make female relatives slightly more fertile. This just doesn't seem to balance out.

Simples, the chances of you getting one copy of the gene are roughly 50% (their are four chances, not getting it at all, getting it from your father, getting it from your mother or getting it from both.) while your chances of getting anaemia is 25%, if both parents have a single copy of the gene. Therefore any child of such a union is twice as likely to be malaria resistant as to have anaemia.

Now lets look at the number of people dying from both malaria and sickle cell anaemia. Malaria killed an estimated 627,000 people worldwide in 2012 (source WHO), and that's down significantly on historic levels. I cannot find any statistics on deaths from sickle cell anaemia, but the WHO estimates the number of babies born each year with severe forms of all haemoglobin disorders (i.e. bad enough to be potentially fatal) at 300,000, i.e. less than half the number of malarial deaths. And from wikipedia the average lifespan of somebody with sickle cell anaemia is 53 for men and 58 for women (source), beyond the age where humans are expected to reproduce.

Therefore in areas which are malarial it is an absolute advantage to have the gene, even though you run the risk of getting a serious blood disorder.

But the reason why I think you cannot accept the logic behind this, and behind the fact that a certain percentage of a population is homosexual can be advantageous for the population is not because it is hard to grasp, but because you personally do not want to see it.

Frank Bullitt · 17-10-2014 05:00PM

paddy1990 wrote: »

I just saw your post. You are a good poster. I appreciate your reply. My reply will be long winded and hard to understand in parts but bear with me and I hope I do a good job of explaining my thoughts.

My point is this, and this is the view I have at the moment, - darwinists have to have a blind spot about the ramifications of evolutionary theories and the darwinian evolution & physical materialist view (im just going to call this darwinism for short). Let me explain more deeply...

They ultimately CANNOT apply darwinism to their subjective experience or truly understand the ramifications of it (i will explain what i mean as you read on). This is because they are unable to be completely objective due to a subjective bias (even though they claim that they are). However, your subjective experience is, in darwinian materialistic terms, reductable to physical material dynamics and the entire emotional circuitry that you have is a chance product of evolution. (again, this is all glossed over and not fully understood).

You have said that the subjective entity is important to itself - prefering life over death. This is a bias for life over death - and is embedded into the organism (i.e you have been programmed to prefer life rather than death ultimately) by evolution. This is the foundation of why the blind spot/delusion exists - and you can see it in the responses to my posts (i only read two but i imagine there were others along the same lines) who couldn't understand what I was saying. This was because they couldn't grasp true nature of what I was saying about emotions/experiences due to this subjective bias (hence blind spot = delusion). you cannot interpret your emotions/experiences as arbitrary and as physical material and apply that to your life - instead you see how delusional they are - they couldn't even understand the points made.

I've had this argument before, so I knew exactly what kinds of responses I would get. It's human nature to be rigid and hard headed - I don't expect to change anyones mind here - im only making this post because I am bored & cant sleep. However, I will read your reply at some point, as you've written good posts. I will just search your posts and read your reply, rather than browsing through the thread and the predictable replies.

Since all emotions are simply the chance result of natural selection and also reductable to physical biochemical processes - they don't mean anything in themselves - they are physical material and not better (and not worse) than any other physical material. This is a key understanding and this is what 99% of people will fail to be able to understand due to subjective biases.

This means that to be consistent with evolution and the darwinian materialic view, subjectivity would have to be overcome with objectivity, at least in this respect. This seems very hard for most people - "my emotions are not physical material". However, (and I think you will agree), the programmed subjective bias means that subjectivity cannot overcome objectivity and the real ramifications of what I outlined in the above paragraph are either not able to be understood (blind spot - seen on this thread) or understood and avoided/ignored.

The "subjective entity" is automatically biased against the arbitrary nature of the foundation of their subjectivity and materialistic view of their own subjectivity/their own mind.

I could go on but im getting tired. To summarize, delusions/blind spots are built into the subjective entity so that subjectivity overcomes objectivity. This is needed because strict darwinian objectivity is counter to life itself. If emotions and so on are actually understood and interpreted as nothing more than physical material and the arbitrary and essentially meaningless nature of the chance evolutionary proccesses that happened to naturally select arbitrary biochemical pathways are understood and emotional circuitry is truely accepted and interpreted as nothing more than meaningless physical material (meaningless in objective terms), then objectivity overcomes subjectivity and life isn't necessarily better or worse than death and "believing" in emotions (i.e physical material) becomes a delusion. This isn't to say you wouldn't HAVE emotions.

Therefore, delusion and blind spots are absolutely critical to the subjective entity. To be anything other than completely objective (i.e consistent with a materialist view of subjectivity/your own mind) is, by definition, a delusion/blind spot. The darwinian physical materialist POV coupled with the chance/arbitrary design (evolutionarily) of subjectivity itself, combine to essentially negate that subjectivity and expose it as a delusion.

What the hell is this garbage???

catallus · 17-10-2014 05:17PM

Gintonious wrote: »

What the hell is this garbage???

The woeful legacy of the near-total abandonment of metaphysics in one concise question.

floggg · 17-10-2014 05:17PM

iDave wrote: »

Guys another question from someone from a non-scientific background.
Is the relationship between birds and dinosaurs so close to suggest that dinosaurs never truly went extinct? What I mean is, are birds so close we could class them as dinosaurs and the only difference is their name?

Sorry if that might sound like a silly question to ask but I'm just trying to get as decent an understanding as possible without becoming a scientist myself.

I don't don't think you need a science background to answer that. Dinosaurs were a sub-group of cold blooded reptiles.

Birds are warm blooded non-reptiles. They are distinct, non-reptile, non-dinosaur class of animal.

Dinosaurs are extinct.

Edit. I stand corrected. There is a lot of knowledge being dropped in this thread. Me likey.

PopePalpatine · 17-10-2014 07:20PM

catallus wrote: »

The woeful legacy of the near-total abandonment of metaphysics in one concise question.

There's a reason why metaphysics has been abandoned, and that's the advancement of actual physics.

J C · 17-10-2014 08:07PM

obplayer wrote: »

The lecture he gives is nothing to do with Darwinian evolution, it is a lecture on the possibility of life first arriving, that first self-replicating molecular structure, by chance. It has nothing at all to do with evolution which is exclusively about what happens once life has arisen. As to how life first arose, that is a fascinating debate but a separate one.

Its a lecture on the competing theory to Materialistic Evolution ... Intelligent Design ... and this is how you scientifically detect design:-

obplayer · 17-10-2014 08:13PM

J C wrote: »

Its a lecture on the competing theory to Materialistic Evolution ... Intelligent Design ... and this is how you scientifically detect design:-

I will say it again, the lecture has nothing whatever to do with any form of evolution. Nothing. If you cannot understand something that basic then once again I have to query your 'scientific credentials'.

J C · 17-10-2014 08:20PM

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

"shiny attractive clothes" damn those facts, making themselves look appealing. That's when you break out the talking snakes and people living in whales. Facts are a gateway to things like thinking.

... its the packaging and stories around selected facts that make Evolutionism so attractive to people who want to deny God.

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Maybe there's a special type of self loathing required to be a committed Christian. After all it's a great business model, convince people they're somehow broken and need spiritual mending, and there's only one person who can do it. Who happens to be the person who made you broken to begin with...

You're basically committing yourself to eternal worship of a tyrant because he couldn't manage to stop two people from eating an apple. The mental gymnastics behind such a belief system are actually boggling.

No self-loathing on the part of Christians nor tyranny on the part of God ... just pure love on both sides.:)

... it's great to know there is a living omnipotent God that loves each one of us personally (and that includes you too, dear reader) ... and wants us all to share eternal bliss with Him in Heaven for eternity.
... its the deal of a lifetime ... and yet many people freely spurn it.

Delirium · 17-10-2014 08:26PM

J C wrote: »

... its the packaging and stories around selected facts that make Evolutionism so attractive to people who want to deny God.

and yet people of all religious stripes also accepted evolution.

J C · 17-10-2014 08:32PM

wrote:

floggg
I don't don't think you need a science background to answer that. Dinosaurs were a sub-group of cold blooded reptiles.

Birds are warm blooded non-reptiles. They are distinct, non-reptile, non-dinosaur class of animal.

Dinosaurs are extinct.
Doctor Jimbob
I mean this in the nicest way possible but this post shows that you definitely do need a science background to answer the question :pac:

Dinosaurs are a 'rag-bag' of different creatures that were big and scary (hence the derivation from the words 'terrible lizard').
It consists of organisms as small as a chicken to giant creatures up to estimated weights of 50 tonnes or more spread across classes from reptiles to mammals i.e. including both ectotherms and endotherms.

J C · 17-10-2014 08:37PM

SW wrote: »

and yet people of all religious stripes also accepted evolution.

... You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.:)

Abraham Lincoln

... a chastening thought!!!

kingchess · 17-10-2014 08:38PM

the majority of religious people who follow an Abrahamic faith believe in evolution.the rest of the worlds many different faiths and their scientists believe in evolution.the facts lead them to that conclusion.

EoghanIRL · 17-10-2014 08:38PM

J C wrote: »

... You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.:)

Abraham Lincoln

Stop trying to fool all of the people all of the time so.

Brian Shanahan · 17-10-2014 08:40PM

endacl wrote: »

Almost. We are apes. We evolved from an almost-but-not-quite ape that was almost indistinguishable from Homo sapiens.

A big part of the problem IMO is that we are described taxonomically as Homo, when we should really be still described as Pan. A bit of arrogance on the part of the scientists who named us in the first place going so far as to use the name Homo Sapiens Sapiens (trans: really wise man) was I think kind of stupid.

The name suggested at the end of the first Science of Discworld book, Pan Narrans (storytelling ape) is a far better descriptor for our species, and would cause a lot less confusion amongst the less well educated scientifically. But the horse has already bolted.

Delirium · 17-10-2014 08:41PM

J C wrote: »

... You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.:)

Abraham Lincoln

And that's why evolution is accepted over creationism.

J C · 17-10-2014 08:42PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster, there's a second poster engaging in verbosity now!
:rolleyes:

... not just two verbose posters ... there are many

J C · 17-10-2014 08:46PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A big part of the problem IMO is that we are described taxonomically as Homo, when we should really be still described as Pan. A bit of arrogance on the part of the scientists who named us in the first place going so far as to use the name Homo Sapiens Sapiens (trans: really wise man) was I think kind of stupid.

The name suggested at the end of the first Science of Discworld book, Pan Narrans (storytelling ape) is a far better descriptor for our species, and would cause a lot less confusion amongst the less well educated scientifically. But the horse has already bolted.

The Evolutionists haven't fully taken over academia ... just yet.
When they do, I'm sure that Homo will be morphed into Pan ... to describe 'Evolutionist Man' ... with Homo Sapiens Sapiens reserved to 'Creationist Man' ... due to its abandonment by Evolutionists, because they think they are Apes ... quite appropriate really.:)

J C · 17-10-2014 08:52PM

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Stop trying to fool all of the people all of the time so.

I'll leave that to you guys ... but I don't think it's going to work anyway ... according to old Abe.:)

looksee · 17-10-2014 08:54PM

Thanks LizT for sorting the biggest problem with this thread

J C · 17-10-2014 08:54PM

kingchess wrote: »

the majority of religious people who follow an Abrahamic faith believe in evolution.the rest of the worlds many different faiths and their scientists believe in evolution.the facts lead them to that conclusion.

What facts lead them to conclude that Pondkind could evolve spontaneously into Mankind?

Delirium · 17-10-2014 08:56PM

J C wrote: »

The Evolutionists haven't fully taken over academia ... just yet.
When they do, I'm sure that Homo will be morphed into Pan ... to describe 'Evolutionist Man' ... with Homo Sapiens reserved to 'Creationist Man' ... due to its abandonment by Evolutionists, because they think they are Apes ... quite appropriate really.:)

You make it sound like a global conspiracy of misinformation within the scientific community.

J C · 17-10-2014 08:59PM

SW wrote: »

You make it sound like a global conspiracy of misinformation within the scientific community.

... no conspiracy ... just one enormous great 'group think' ... that's simply wrong.:)

J C · 17-10-2014 09:02PM

looksee wrote: »

Thanks LizT for sorting the biggest problem with this thread

... the problems with Darwin's Theory won't be solved as easily as that!!!:pac:

... or this >>>

Delirium · 17-10-2014 09:07PM

J C wrote: »

... no conspiracy ... just one enormous great 'group think' ... that's simply wrong.:)

And it couldn't that creationists reject science in favour of the passages in Genesis?

Brian Shanahan · 17-10-2014 09:12PM

Knasher wrote: »

I had to google it and wikipedia lists it as the childrens film society, india. However as that doesn't make any sense, I took a guess from the context and I think it means coding for specific information. Which seems to fit.

It would be nice if he refrained form making up random acrynoms though, or IWBNIHRFMURA as it will be known from now on.

Google William Dumbski, he thought the concept up. It's called Complex Specified Functional Information. Of course he keeps changing the name because it is bullshit, and laughed out of any proper debate on evolution when rumbled (which is about five minutes after he debuts a new name).

kingchess · 17-10-2014 09:14PM

J C wrote: »

What facts lead them to conclude that Pondkind could evolve spontaneously into Mankind?

the facts-you know-the science

the only people who believe in creation " theory" are people who try and fail to to fit the science to a 2000+year old book:D. no scientist would have came up with creation theory without having a very strong belief in the bible but it could be worse-they could have read and believed the LORD OF THE RINGS

.:D

J C · 17-10-2014 09:16PM

SW wrote: »

And it couldn't that creationists reject science in favour of the passages in Genesis?

... we don't reject science ... and science actually supports the genesis account of Special Creation.

Darwin's theory

Comments