|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
posted October 12, 2007 11:20 AM |
|
|
@Gallow:
Quote:
bla bla bla bla,and bla,no matter what you say about evolution or whatever i DONT believe it ,you werent living in that time,so nobody,neither the science can proof it 100%!!!!,so i wont post here anymore cos is full of darwin fanatics(and fan of apes too),and respect other forms of thinking respect this thread,cos i see saying that you wanna like others change their way of thinking,well no,this thread for me id dead,no sence at all anymore.
Thankyou for your post Gallow.
This is seriously comedy gold for me.
"(and fan of apes too)"
Classic. You are a prime example of why people love to choose the softer option of religion over the option favoured by common sense, evolution.
Maybe you can't prove evolution 100%, but you can provide evidence for it maybe 95%. Religion you can't even prove 1%, if you want to bring percentage into it.
---------
@Mytical:
Quote:
First, I am not against science in any mannor except one. When people use it as a type of religion. The 'You can't be right, because this or that (insert scientific principle) says you are wrong." Then it goes more into the area of 'blind faith'.
Blind faith infers that you have no evidence. If you can produce evidence, then it is not blind faith per se.
Quote:
God created the world in seven days. Days, not millions or billions of year. The reason there are similarities in dna or whatever is because they all did come from one source. God. Since they were from his 'imagination' some were different also. Now..during this time there were two areas on earth. Eden, and everywhere else. When he created Adam, Adam was immortal. A very long time passed, while the outside world changed and grew ect, ect. Time did not matter to Adam so he did not record it, millions or even billions of years could have passed. Then God seeing Adam was lonely created Eve. More time passed. Though it was an intimate relationship, no children came from them at this time. More time passed. In Eden nothing much changed, but in the outside world, things continued to change.
Why? Because God knew man (and woman) would eventually fall to temptation, and wanted the world ready for them. He did not want them to suffer needlessly, but knew that in order for them to grow as individuals and attain higher enlightenment they would have to. It burdened him, but he would have to endure the pain. There is no mention in the bible how long it was between the earth being made and Eve, or between Eve and them getting booted from Eden. It could have been BILLIONS of years. They were immortal, why did they care how much time was passed?
Now although they were very intelligent, when they were shown the door of Eden they had no tools, and only clothes made from foliage on their backs. Now though God protected them for a time, they had to make do with the things around. This would explain why things were so primitive. Now here comes the one thing in the theory that really needs work. Once they had children, unless their children mated with each other, where did the new source of DNA come from? Well there were homosapiens (Adam and Eve) and the closest thing was I believe called Homoerectus? (I could be mistaken). They mated with these (so technically we did decend from apes, but we also had other ancestors as well). Hey I didn't say things were pretty, just offering a explination.
Yes, it still needs work, it is a work in progress, but it would explain things. If I believed in the Christian Bible, which I do not. So though it says Adam lived X number of years, it was not till after they left Eden that the count began.
In other words the theory of evolution, except started by god, and then Adam and Eve jump in at the end.
I mean no offense, but this seems a bit like a face-saving gesture; to accept the inevitable yet avoid us getting connected to somewhat... dishonorable apes  (even though I think apes are cool, just watch King Kong)
For a start, as Corribus mentioned on the word (I don't want to argue a word but when you bring it up), this isn't really a theory, nor would even be called plausible... it's borderline of conceivably possible. Maybe in the same sense that I am willing to admit that anything is possible, however remote.
If god wanted to release Adam and Eve into a world that was ready for them, why not just create it ready? In this sense, the Bible actually makes more sense from the perspective of an omnipotent god, and that's saying something
Although that brings up the idea of why did it take seven days (how do you measure a day before the universe is created anyway), why was adam made from dust, why was eve made from his rib (what happened to "let there be man?") and the story just makes less and less sense as it goes on.
To prove my stance on this is not stubborn beyond reasonable argument, one of my old science teachers told me her point of view on theology, as she combined modern science with the Christian story put better than anyone else I've seen. She believes that the story in the bible is true, just the time scale is wrong. As in, instead of days, it is billions of years, as god created the sea and the sky and all that, and then created the first living organisms that then went on to evolve into all the animals and plants and humans we have today.
Interesting idea, but same failings unfortunately.
-----
And Mytical, Corribus is referring to a theory in scientific terms, not in the same way that any idea is a theory.
A "fact" in science is an observation. A "theory" in science is an explanation of the observations.
ie. Gravity is a fact. The Theory of Relativity is a theory describing the fact.
Maybe you are thinking of an hypothesis. Speculative or conjectural explanations are called hypotheses. Well-tested explanations are called theories, remembering that there is no 'proof' in science, only in maths.
Questions numbered for convenience, people seem not to like small quotes 
Quote:
1.Do you think we are the first intelligent species ever formed?
2. If not, could other entities have already evolved past what we are now?
3. If so, might they have abilities and be able to do things that we can not?
4. Statistically with billions of stars in this galaxy alone, what are the odds of such beings exsisting?
5. If such beings did exsist, in a evolved form greater then ours, would they not have superior attributes (or in other words be a 'higher power')?
6. Now with that in mind, could they have not visited earth, influencing us (having evolved way before us, with the ability to overcome certain things like the speed of light, ect)?
1. No. Manny mammals are highly intelligent, not just the famous Dolphins, and especially other primates have been known to use tools, and symbols. We are the first sentient beings on Earth, however, apart from perhaps other early man that is now extinct. As for other planets, there definately could have been others. (Sorry if this isn't a straight answer)
2. Yes. We are not the final product of evolution on our planet, much less on any other planet. However a threat of extinction may arise for a civilization that reaches our technology level as competition for resources could lead to an annihilating war, and as we're finding out of late, planet destruction through pollution. Those are two main hurdles that a species that has made it this far would need to overcome.
3. Yes. This is my opinion based on guesswork. For instance, flying is a good possibility.
4. That depends on a lot of things. It depends on the suitability of the star, metallicity required to form a stable planet, the planet needs to be the right distance from the sun to have liquid water, the atmospheric make up of that planet, and then the problem of intelligent life evolving.
You might find and answer using the
Drake equation.
Which states that
N = R * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc * L
where:
N = The number of broadcasting civilizations.
R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy
fp = Fraction of stars that form planets
ne = Average number of habitable planets per star
fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges
fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves
fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication
L = Years a civilization remains detectable
Using the original (and said to be overstated) values of the Drake equation, the number of broadcasting civilizations is estimated at 10. This is probably the upper bound, though the estimates using this equation range from many tens to <0.01. (but we know it must be at least one, us included )
5. Yes. I don't quite understand this question. If they were in a more evolved form than us, they could have superior attributes, if this is your question. But this does not in any sense make them a higher power, no.
6. Yes. In the same way anything is possible. But harboring this idea would seem like a very desperate last ditch effort at grasping at the supernatural.
|
|
Gallow
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Avenger
|
|
posted October 12, 2007 12:20 PM |
|
Edited by Gallow at 12:23, 12 Oct 2007.
|
|
Its not comedy that i had posted,maybe for you cos with your "investigations with no sence" you wanna fight all the ppl who believe in god??,so dont insult,is not comedy,with your fantasy like,"we are not the only who evolved,and others could did it too" yea sure,and you talk like if you would be sure of what you say and is not,sorry,only theory and fantasy,usually im good person,but that you said about "comedy" was like an insult,so shut up,i hate ppl like you.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 12, 2007 02:40 PM |
|
|
Seeing as theories are such a hot topic at the moment, let's get this clear for everyone:
By Definition:
Evolution is a FACT
God is an IDEA
This is not a matter of opinion.
Not the other way around. Evolution is not fantasy, it is an observable phenomenon.
(also I don't want to fight people who believe in god and I didn't insult you)
Anything else?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 12, 2007 04:08 PM |
|
|
Quoting Mytical:
Quote:
Arguing semantics agian. Theory : Definition 6 and 7 from Dictionary.com
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
So theory is a correct usage.
I'm sorry, Mytical, but there's (much) more to it than that. There's the dictionary definition and there's the scientific definition. Certainly, you can use "theory" in an every day sense to describe any conjecture applying to every day life. For instance, "I have a theory about why my dog takes a crap on the rug." I think you'll agree that that is quite a long shot from a real scientific theory. A real scientific theory operates under a certain set of precise rules, and requires a certain set of conditions in order to be useful. If any random conjecture could be considered a scientific theory, science would get nowhere. The first and foremost of these conditions is that the theory must be TESTABLE, through physical experimentation. Really, I don't understand why more people don't know this. The scientific method is supposed to be taught in Elementary school, but clearly it's not being taught well OR people are just willfully altering the definition for their own convenience. Take it from a scientist: not every conjecture is a theory.
Quote:
Do you think we are the first intelligent species ever formed?
Do you mean in the Universe at present? My gut (and statistics) indicates that probably the answer is no.
Quote:
If not, could other entities have already evolved past what we are now?
Why not? Furthermore, *we* will evolve past where we are now (assuming we don't become extinct).
Quote:
If so, might they have abilities and be able to do things that we can not?
By abilities, do you mean: might they for instance be able to see in the infrared? Sure. If there ARE other planets out there with life, chances are the conditions are at least moderately different than the conditions on Earth. Since organisms adapt to their environments, different environments would give rise to life with different characteristics. So, putative life on different planets would have very different "abilities". You don't need to look to other planets to see that. There are plenty of examples of bizarre life forms on Earth.
If by abilities you mean other technologies, again I don't see why it isn't possible. If you want a quantified probability, I'm sorry but I just can't give it to you. Too many unknown factors.
Quote:
Statistically with billions of stars in this galaxy alone, what are the odds of such beings exsisting?
Hard to say. Look up the Green Bank Equation for a loose way to estimate such things. Edit: Nevermind, TA already described it for you.
I skipped the rest of your questions because I fail to see how this has anything to do with testing Creationism. Perhaps you'd explain.
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2007 11:09 AM |
|
|
If you would spend a few minutes to browse through wikipedia many of your questions would be answered. E.g speciation.
____________
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 13, 2007 01:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
are we not supposedly (way down the line) decendant from reptiles?
No, not really. Not as far as I know, at least.
That's like saying we evolved from trees.
Mammals evolved entirely different from reptiles.
I agree that the theory of evolution is far from perfect. But its opposers claim that it's uncorrect because a few links are missing, and there isn't enough proof.
And is there proof that we were created the way we are now? Quite the opposite, there is a lot of things that prove otherwise.
Besides, what with the Australopitecus, Homo Erectus and the others?
About the argument that evolution isn't observable - it is quite observable, it is just slow for our standards. We can clearly see that various species (including humans) are currently in various steps of evolution. There is a lot of proof that species on a higher level of evolution have, for example, more developed parts of brain.
So I will go with evolution. I'm not excluding the possibility of God. I am just saying that we weren't created - poof, just like that. And there isn't any other sensible or possible theory.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2007 03:39 PM |
|
Edited by Ecoris at 15:39, 13 Oct 2007.
|
Quote:
http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
I was wondering what you think of that, Mytical
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 13, 2007 04:31 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:33, 13 Oct 2007.
|
Quote:
Well evolution is not actually an observable now is it? Sure, there are simalar DNA strands, ect, but nobody has ever observed one species evolving into another. You can't test it (currently, though we might be able to in the future), only conclude that since there is similar patterns it must be that way. Statistically speaking (using words I heard somewhere...wouldn't know where) anything is possible. The similarities could very well be coincidence. Until such time that we have observed this, and it is repeatable, it can not be fully tested.
*sigh*
That's not what I mean by testable, and that's not how experimentation is done. A viable experiment to test a theory isn't "wait around until you see it happpen". Going back and observing something directly is not the only way to obtain evidence for a theory. Nevermind the fact that evolution is way too complex for such a simplistic experimental design, but experiments must also be reproducible, which demands controlled settings. I've used the analogy before, but here it is again: when a murder happens, there are many ways to determine who did it - or that it was murder in the first place - without going back and observing the event firsthand. You see, another major criteria of a real, scientific theory is that it must make predictions. As such, the way theories are often tested is to test whether the predictions bear out under logically-created conditions. So while it is not possible to go back and witness billions of years of evolution first-hand (although much can be inferred using archaeology and other techniques that allow us to infer events in the past), it *is* possible to test the predictions of evolution in a controlled laboratory setting. Furthermore, in addition to empirical experimentation, complex theories can also now be tested theoretically (i.e., by computer modelling).
Note that Creationism makes no predictions (another reason it's not a real theory).
Quote:
Evolution, by your own words, takes a long time. It may be millions of years before such time before we observe can fully test it.
Nope.
Quote:
We only have to wait at most 150 years to find out if religion is correct. Why you ask? Because then we will have died and we will know absolutely, possitively, if there is something beyond death.
That's not useful experiment.
Quote:
Show me a viable way of testing and observing that evolution leads to one species becoming another, I will conceed the point. Sorry, lab test with DNA does not count. That only proves that we have similar DNA, not that we evolved from them or vice versa. I am sure there is probably some plants out there that might have one or two markers similar to us. No I mean observable in our life time changes, and repeatable, and from one species to another.
There are plenty of books on the subject if you are really interested. There are volumes and volumes of experimental evidence in support of Evolution. For a simple example that you can directly observe, I might direct your attention to antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Unless you think that's just caused by God being pissed off at humans and giving us more advanced diseases?
Quote:
Now here comes the part where somebody again says I do not understand evolution, and that it takes millions of years, and such (again I would not have a clue who . Somebody said that every aspect of a theory must be testable. That would mean the part of evolution that suggests that species evolves into other species would be testable.
That's actually a ramification (a prediction) of the theory that can be inferred from the details.
Quote:
As for testing creationism, the only viable way would to build a time machine. Travel back in time, and observe it first hand.
"Wait around and see if it happens" (or in this case, "go back in time and see if it happens") is not a valid test.
Quote:
My hypothesis is that one of these beings might have been the 'higher power' that caused us to come into being.
1. It's not a good hypothesis if you can't propose a mechanism or a reason for the proposition. Nor is it a good hypothesis if you can't devise a way to test it. If I hypothesize that the sun won't rise tomorrow, it's a pretty empty question if I have no reason to make such a statement other than the mere fact that I don't think the currently accepted expectation is right. I.e., just making hypotheses for no reason is a pointless exercise and gets you nowhere.
2. Even if this was a good hypothesis that could be tested, it wouldn't any longer really be Creationism, now would it?
Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but are we not supposedly (way down the line) decendant from reptiles? I have never argued that within it's own species there is not mutations or evolution. My argument is that there is no testable proof, other then we have similar DNA, that we ever evolved even from Apes, let alone reptiles.
Now some people will bring up fossils. They say that some fossils prove evolution. When it could be that the fossils found are exceptions not the rule. There are humans today who 'lay' with animals. Normally no offspring is produced, and the odds are slim. It is however possible that finding fossils that seem to be a link between two species is just that..some interspecies funny business going on. Until we see it for ourselves, in the wild, and it is reproducable...
Pretending for a moment that you have any idea what you're talking about, what is the point of trying to cast spurious ("well, what if..." style) doubt on a theory with billions of pieces of supporting evidence, if there is not a single viable scientific alternative? It's a self-defeating exercise.
If you're really interested in the subject, on the details of speciation and what is actually known, you would really do yourself a service by educating yourself on the subject before you raise challenges. There are plenty of readable books on the subject. I think I already mentioned "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, but even a textbook would be useful for you. If you do this, you wouldn't say something as ignorant as "We supposedly descended from [as inferred, modern] reptiles."
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 14, 2007 08:33 AM |
|
|
@Mytical:
Quote:
Well evolution is not actually an observable now is it?
Yes, it is.
Evolution states that species change, and that has been observed, through change in allelic frequencies. Species are not static.
Quote:
Yes, but not being able to breed with each other does not a different species make. As I have said, there are humans who can not mate with each other at all, but I doubt anybody would argue they are not human.
That's the definition of it. You say you don't want to argue semantics then you display a direct contradiction to these ideas.
Which humans cannot mate with each other?
Quote:
As for testing creationism, the only viable way would to build a time machine. Travel back in time, and observe it first hand. Common, one of you geniuses surely can overcome time.  . As for my remaining questions, here is how they relate to Creationism (note: may get sidetracked do to shiny thing syndrome, if so, I'll get around to it in another post)
Go back in time and see what? Adam and Eve coming out of the garden? God creating the world?
If we did go back in time, and hypothetically evolution was right, wouldn't we be able to observe evolution as well? So evolution wouldn't take longer to prove, it would take either shorter than or the same time as creationism.
And anyway, doesn't proving god's existence destroy faith?
Quote:
Show me a viable way of testing and observing that evolution leads to one species becoming another, I will conceed the point. Sorry, lab test with DNA does not count. That only proves that we have similar DNA, not that we evolved from them or vice versa. I am sure there is probably some plants out there that might have one or two markers similar to us. No I mean observable in our life time changes, and repeatable, and from one species to another.
Now here comes the part where somebody again says I do not understand evolution, and that it takes millions of years, and such (again I would not have a clue who  ). Somebody said that every aspect of a theory must be testable. That would mean the part of evolution that suggests that species evolves into other species would be testable. While DNA and such suggest common ancestory, and that part is being tested, it does not prove it. There might be a thousand different reasons we have similar DNA. However, it seems as if they have written it off as a forgone conclusion and stopped looking for other explinations (they may not have, but it does seem that way).
It's easy to test whether species change. Calculate the gene frequencies in a population, come back in a few decades, calculate it again. If it has changed, the species must have changed. This proves that species are not immutable. This counts as testing evolution.
You are asking us to show you something that happens over millions of years in a time scale of less than a century, which is a practical impossibility. It can be tested, but you cannot observe the entirety of something that takes longer than you live for. It's not the theory's fault that you die so young. If you lived for billions of years you could see it happening, and the fact that we can see this (for lack of a better word) stream happening we can determine that there was a source, a start, to this evolution, and that is natural selection. Please check you understand the thing you are criticising before you criticise it.
Quote:
Insect
Arachnid
Reptile
Amphibeon (bad speller rememeber)
Mammal
ect.
Correct me if I am wrong, but are we not supposedly (way down the line) decendant from reptiles? I have never argued that within it's own species there is not mutations or evolution. My argument is that there is no testable proof, other then we have similar DNA, that we ever evolved even from Apes, let alone reptiles.
Ok, you are wrong.
In fact, you are not even in the right ballpark.
What you're failing to grasp is that a list like that would represent the timeline of these classes being distinguished, not evolving from one form into another. Even in this sense your list is entirely wrong.
I wish you knew the basics of the theory of evolution, I really do.
It started out as one organism (there must have been a first), as prokaryotes in the water (of which there are fossils even now, billions of years old). These evolved into aquatic animals.
Some of these aquatic animals survived today, but some of them went to land to become reptiles. Some of these reptiles survive today, but some of these will have separated from the rest to evolve differently in a different environment. The next generation would be slightly different, and so on and so on until one generation is so different that it cannot mate with the reptiles that still survive from the original group. The original group did not one day have kids that could not mate with the parents..
And no there is no testable proof (proof does not exist in science), but there is plenty of testable evidence that I have pointed out to you many times besides similar DNA (which in my opinion is a dead giveaway). I won't bother explaining it again but if you were actually curious for answers rather than just being stubborn you could read my post a couple of posts back on linkage groups and why this demonstrates common origins.
Quote:
I realise there are species, and there are species. A loon is a species of bird, while a robin is a different species of bird. But evolution suggests we have crossed the bigger species rift (genis?). Not once, but many times. Somebody wish to put up a evolutionary chart describing how man come to be? I am not just talking the monkey chart, but farther back to as far as possible.
Odd I can only find the charts from Monkey to Man. Has there been some change I am not aware of? What did monkey's evolve from? What did that evolve from? ect.
This is not odd, in fact it doesn't surprise me at all.
You just don't know where to look.
Try searching for phylogenetic tree.
Here's a nice one a quick google search brings up, with pretty pictures as a bonus
Notice it is called a tree because the paths branch. It is not a phylogenetic road, going from insects to reptiles.
Quote:
My contention is that if there is no single starting point, then the theory of man evolving from something else itself becomes suspect. It's simplicity at it's finest. Either life just popped out of thin air (without divine guidence) and then we evolved, or there is some other explination. Yet, as of right now nobody is really pursuing any other explination, plausable or not. If somebody does not raise questions, there is no reason to change. If nobody asked "What if we could harness electricity" where would we be? What if questions have caused more scientific breakthroughs then just about any other question..maybe more then them all combined.
LOL. Yes, people are exploring other options. No one has yet formulated a theory that better explains the observed phenomena we have today.
And your idea of asking questions and not taking things for granted is entirely skewed in this case. Evolution is the idea that came about when someone asked questions about the law that was creationism. People are raising questions, people are continually researching. But then there are people who are stubborn and refuse to listen, refuse to accept evidence for what it is, and are in a continual state of denial. Most people still stick to the previously unquestioned law that was creationism, not the other way around lol.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 14, 2007 09:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As for examples of some humans not being able to breed with some others, there are some people who have interbred so much they can no longer breed with each other. Does this make them no longer human?
Species do evolve and change. As of right now, however, the evolution of one (genis?) to another has not been proven to my expectations. Until this is observable and repeatable, I have my doubts. Even some of the greatest minds of our time argue that test conducted in controlled environments are questionable. The same may not be possible in the chaotic natural environment that exsists outside of those tests. And common DNA could very well be explained differently some day down the road, or it could be mere coincidence.
I have never heard of such people who cannot breed with other humans. If they exist, then they are not Homo sapien, no.
As taxonomy goes, it is Domain (eg. Eukarya), Kingdom (eg. Animalia), Phylum, Class (eg. Mammalia), Order, Family, Genus (eg. Homo), Species (eg. sapien) as well as various sub species that can define race etc, but are able to be interbreed. So one genus does not evolve into another, but rather species can evolve into another species (speciation, check out Ecoris' link) until a new genus can be formed. And I'm not sure what kind of evidence you're looking for that one genus can evolve into another, or as I think you mean, an organism of one genus can be traced back to an ancestor of a different genus. Do you actually want to see it happen in front of you? It's not something you can watch (which does not mean it's not testable). And I think you mean something more like Class rather than Genus, as for example Australopithacus, a type of early man, had a different Genus to us, yet you seem not to like talking of evolution of ape to man.
As for DNA, even one single gene of billions is so complex that coincidence of 98% of them being the same is insane.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 14, 2007 09:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, it really isn't that hard to understand. Take building a few buildings. Now not every building is identical, nor is every building built by the same people. Yet they use similar products in their buildings. Be it steel, concrete, whatever. Some they build huge, some small, some even have different shapes (though interestingly enough those are fewer in number, the basic shape seems to be rectangular). Still, the few basic elements used are the same for the most part.
DNA is the building material for life. Be it simple or complex. Just because similar material is used, does not mean anything. The differences are more important then the similarities. Take two buildings, identical in size, shape, ect. They are designed by the same person, using 'almost' identical material. There is in fact only one difference. One this person used only high quality steel, in the other he used the cheapest, most impure steel he could find. If you were purchasing one of these buildings and knew this..which would you buy? They look identical on the outside.
It is the differences that set us (and other animals, ect) apart from each other. It is the unique qualities that make them who and what they are.
Forget the fact that similar material is used (although that is an even more unlikely coincidence), but DNA when you get down to it is base codon sequence.
There are four different codons, and I don't know how many codons long human DNA is but it is a gargantuan number. For 98% of it to be the same from a random order... Remembering that it is this order that determines all of our features (small changes made from environment as well), so similarity in DNA is similarity in the very essence of us.
And again the linkage groups being able to remain through genetic shuffling throughout the ages and being the same in two evolved species is evidence that they evolved from a common source.
As i've said before, you can look at homologous features, comparative embryology and vesitigial structures.
If something looks the same as something else does not mean it is related, that is why you have to look at homologous structures and even more basic DNA sequences.
For example sharks and dolphins look similar but they are entirely different from one another (dolphins are mammals, sharks are Chondrichthyes) because they have analogous structures, ie. they have the same function but different structure, like the wings of a butterfly and the wings of an eagle.
I answered your other queries yet you've ignored the answers lol.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 14, 2007 10:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Lets take a look at that building buildings thing again. When a building is made, do you just start anywhere (oh say second floor, or top floor) and the proceed randomly? Of course not, there is a logical way to build things. Same with DNA. So the fact that they are in the same sequence again is not random chance, it is the building process used.
Now since I have yet to go back over any questions I asked, how does this imply I am ignoring the answers? I am taking time to process the information first, before bringing it up again. We have moved on to an entirely different line of discussion about evolution and DNA. Maybe a bit offtopic however, I will admit that. Still goes to the heart of evolution, so maybe not.
So I don't see what the problem is.
This 'building process' is called natural selection. A developed organism doesn't just appear because it can. It has to evolve from something basic, like the first floor in your analogy. That we agree on.
There also has to be a first organism (if there are organisms today there must have, at one stage, been only one). Just that everything else built up from this in the logical manner, which is natural selection, and the product of which is evolution.
I think you realize that evolution makes sense, you just don't realize it yet (or don't want to accept it)
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 14, 2007 11:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Evolution does make sense within a species, that I will not argue. Creatures must adapt or they will parish.
Then we come back to your time scale. Extend that evolution within a species over billions of years and eventually the changes are great enough to form speciation and the diversity of life we have today.
Quote:
My arguement simply is that Common DNA does not automatically mean common ancestry from another Class (?). Simply because DNA is the building material for life, and with any building process there is a common proceedure.
No, it doesn't automatically mean it, but it makes it so much more likely.
And your analogy is off. By saying it shares a common procedure you are vastly understating the similarities. It is more like comparing two buildings that are overall 98% similar. That is like having two identical houses but one has a few different door knobs and is painted differently. Structurally, they are the same, one has merely been repainted. Coincidence is so extremely small considering the complexity of a house, and then factor up that complexity by billions and you are nearing the real thing. Coincidence of that much DNA shouldn't even be considered.
Quote:
So on the basic levels we agree. I do believe everything evolves. My basic problem is I want solid concrete proof that humans evolved from something else. Not just DNA arguements, but something more solid. Until that time, the genesis of man (and other species) may have very well been brought about by a 'divine' origin.
Fossils and DNA have other possible explinations. Yes I am saying 'what if'. If you disagree with that, by all means, that is your right. However, I believe 'what if' is the absolute best question anybody especially a scientist can ask.
Define solid concrete evidence (proof doesn't exist in science, you can't PROVE anything). There already is such thing, you simply don't understand it. No other concept explains humans as we are today as well as evolution. I mean, if humans are designed, this 'divine' being must be a divinely stupid designer.
So I think that you have a fundamental problem with evolution that is causing you to reject it, not based on logic but merely that you don't like it. You search for other ideas to replace it, even others which incorporate evolution in them (like the highly evolved aliens).
People demand evidence for evolution along every step of the way, when the other theories are not required to produce even the slightest amount of evidence, yet are automatically favoured.
As Richard Dawkin's put it;
"There is a hidden "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better at explaining it."
Quote:
Now some people will bring up fossils. They say that some fossils prove evolution. When it could be that the fossils found are exceptions not the rule.
Not one fossil has ever been found that doesn't fit the theory of evolution.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 14, 2007 06:34 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:51, 14 Oct 2007.
|
Quoting Mytical:
Quote:
Again, I ask you. Supply a evolutionary timeline of how humans evolved. You are supposedly the one who knows how it all works.
Actually, I'm not, which is sort of the whole point. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and I do not know the details of the theory like an evolutionary biologist would. I *am* a scientist, however, so I have a deep understanding how science is done, and what a theory is. I have a good deal on the subject, so I know general information and basic principles, but no, I cannot provide you a lot of specific details about the theory. However, making such a statement reveals to me that you do not have an appreciation of how complex a scientific theory is.
Furthermore, another thing you need to understand about general scientific theories is that they are not really devised to explain specific details of nature. In other words, your arguments against evolution are too narrow in scope. You ask "Well, if evolution is so right, then you should be able to tell me exactly how humans evolved from bacteria." But general scientific theories aren't reallly interested in details like this. General scientific theories are devised to make basic, general predictions about nature and to explain in a general sort of way why nature is like it is. IN PRINCIPLE, a general scientific theory can provide a framework within which you can understand a specific detail of nature, but extrapolating a general scientific theory from the general case to a specific application is not always easy or clear. For instance, to provide an example from within my own region of discipline, quantum mechanics is a general scientific theory that was devised (from the vantage of chemistry) to explain in a general sort of way the structure of matter, and the interaction of matter with light and energy. In such a way, QM allows us to predict, again in a general fashion, how molecules form, what they look like, and how they might react with other molecules in a variety of conditions. QM has been validated by a century of research and is believed by many to be one of the most successful theories ever devised by humans. We feel thus quite confident in making predictions using QM and there is yet to be a prediction made by QM (chemically) that has not been born out by experiment. (It is STILL considered a "theory" mind you.) Nevertheless, despite its success, while in principle QM should be able to tell you how a certain enzyme in the body converts some starting material into a product, even the most well-versed scientist (or even sophisticated computer program) may not be able to use QM to tell you exactly how the reaction happens. That doesn't mean we can't use the ideas of QM to explain the given reaction in a general sort of way by using other known reactions as a starting point. But just because we understand a theory and it is thought to be correct, does not mean that its application to every theory is straightforward.
Can I provide an evolutionary timeline how humans evolved? Certainly not. Could an evolutionary biologist? Most certainly they could do a better job than I could. But even if they couldn't, that does not render the theory void. What matter is that IN PRINCIPLE the theory could be used to devise such.
Quote:
I merely question the evolution of one species to different species (and I am not talking one type of bird to another type of bird).
You do realize that species are constructs devised by humans (taxonomists) to classify creatures. They are not necessarily static entities, as TA has made abundantly clear. Taxonomists are continually revising their categorizations, reflecting new evidence from DNA as to which creatures are more closely related to others. The species of "horse" doesn't really have any intrinsic meaning, especially extrapolated over time.
Quote:
So if we did not come from another species (such as ape) where DID we come from?
The point is that we did not likely evolve from modern apes. At some point, the path of apes and the path of humans diverged from a common start point. Likewise, we did not evolve from reptiles. What you know as reptiles today and what you know as humans today diverged from a common starting point some time in the past. That starting point may have resembled modern lizards more than it resembled modern humans, but you speak as if you think there were lizards, and then humans split off and lizards continued being lizards. ALL species are continually evolving.
Quote:
Everything had to have a starting point, what is that starting point? Simple enough questions.
Evolution says nothing specifically about the starting point for life. That's a whole separate branch of science. Evolution is about the process of change, not the origin, or destination, or even any specific point along the journey. This is a point that eludes many people.
TA has done an excellent job addressing all of your "points", so I won't go through them specifically, except here and there.
Quote:
(There was a building analogy here). DNA is the building material for life. Be it simple or complex. Just because similar material is used, does not mean anything.
Actually it means a lot, and your analogy is quite flawed. Basic building materials are constantly changing. Mud --> Stone --> Iron --> Steel --> Fiberglass --> Titanium, etc. Building materials are constantly getting better, stronger. Buidlings made of mud are much weaker than those made of steel. Building materials also vary depending on the local resources. Building materials of life are the same regardless of the creature, and have been the same for a long time, and an infinite amount of variety in function can be achieved. Very bad analogy.
Quote:
I do believe everything evolves. My basic problem is I want solid concrete proof that humans evolved from something else.
A contradictory statement. You believe everything changes, but you want solid proof that humans are different today than they were yesterday. You can't believe everything changes and then believe that humans have never changed.
Quoting TA:
Quote:
Not one fossil has ever been found that doesn't fit the theory of evolution.
Unfortunately, many people are under the erroneous assumption that the lack of a piece of evidence in support of X is the same thing as a supporting piece of evidence for Y. They don't really how stupid this argument is. It's like if I tell a friend that I drove from San Francisco to New York and show him post-cards from Las Vegas, St. Louis, and Chicago as proof of my journey, and then the friend calls me a liar, and uses as his evidence that I don't have a post-card from Cincinnati.
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted October 14, 2007 10:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
" I do believe everything evolves. My basic problem is I want solid concrete proof that humans evolved from something else."
You ask for this proof that we evolved from something others than a idea that a being (God), provided us to this earth. I ask you for the proof that something, such as a God, created us other than a man written text book.
We humans like to think of ourselves as special, set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom by our ability to talk, write, build complex structures, and make moral distinctions. But when it comes to genes, humans are so similar to the two species of chimpanzee that we are known as the "the third chimpanzee." A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5% of their DNA. This means that a very small portion of human DNA is responsible for the traits that make us human, and that a handful of genes somehow confer everything from an upright gait to the ability to recite poetry and compose music.
AS far as the scientific view we are all made of energy, everything is a product of energy so the only block aid that we have then is what produced the energy and are we supposed to worship that which did? Lets say this God created us first, then the chimpanzee, then we died off thus causing the evolution of the chimpanzee again and so on. The fact is that yes we are not proving anything because we are just examining things that are already here and our ignorances of it causes doubt, not the fact that it exists.
Are we just pushing this so we can cover our bases in life, so we can have an idea of what direction we should go in order to have the golden ticket?
Here is the lyrics of a song that makes you think:
XTC
"Dear God"
, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
but all the people that you made in your image, see
them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you
Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
and all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
in the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you
Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in
I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
and if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
my sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in
it's you....
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 15, 2007 12:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, many people are under the erroneous assumption that the lack of a piece of evidence in support of X is the same thing as a supporting piece of evidence for Y. They don't really how stupid this argument is. It's like if I tell a friend that I drove from San Francisco to New York and show him post-cards from Las Vegas, St. Louis, and Chicago as proof of my journey, and then the friend calls me a liar, and uses as his evidence that I don't have a post-card from Cincinnati.
Exactly, the problem seems to be with the 'gaps' in the fossil record, when this is just fossils that have yet to be uncovered that fit the trend anyway, but considering the tiny percentage of deaths that result in a fossil complaining that archaeologists yet to find a few seems to work for them.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 15, 2007 02:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Each creature on the earth could have very well had their own individual ancestors, possibly from a divine origin (though that is only one possibility of many). Note I said every creature could be from a divine origin, not just man.
Yet all evidence points towards a common origin. Your idea is a similar one, yet it is just not backed up by anything. Try the fossil record.
Quote:
Yes material has improved as we advance in technology, but then again as you point out DNA also changes over time. It discards traits that are harmful and adds benifical traits. We discard lesser building material for better building matterial. I take it you don't disagree with my example of how the actual building works? You don't start at the top floor and then build randomly... so why would you expect that DNA works any different? Of course I am not a scientist..what do I know?
Maybe but as I said earlier, it's like having two entirely different people on different sides of the planet building two houses entirely from scratch, having no building experience or any materials at hand, that are 98% similar.
Extremely, extremely unlikely.
It is much more likely that the same house was built and merely changed slightly.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Nirual
Famous Hero
Imbued Ballista
|
|
posted October 15, 2007 03:37 PM |
|
|
I don't believe in religions either, but I respect the social standards present in them, and respect anyone following these standards, wether they believe in god or not.
However, most religions have also been (ab)used for horrible crimes, wars, suppression...
____________
In ur base killing ur doods... and raising them as undeads.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 15, 2007 04:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe but as I said earlier, it's like having two entirely different people on different sides of the planet building two houses entirely from scratch, having no building experience or any materials at hand, that are 98% similar.
Extremely, extremely unlikely.
But it still has a small chance so there's just saying that A is more likely isn't proof for A.
Quote:
If over the next year fifty papers were published that cast serious doubt on evolution, and proposed some totally new theory based on other evidence, and the papers were credible and reproducible, then scientists would consider the possibility that evolution is wrong.
credible: that means whether you think it's sane (like 'logical' as you put it) or simply fantasy (like fairies), but this is subjective. Credibility is a human notion and therefore subjective, that means it isn't truth in any way.
reproducible: this alone means that scientists already believe in something, and that is not science, trust me. They all assume (or believe) that everything is reproducible and can be repeated after several experiments. Now since this 'assumption' hasn't been proven to be the gold standard of how this world works (well actually you can't prove it), then it's also some kind of faith or assumption if you prefer.
Can you start with the assumption that nothing is reproducible? After all, assumptions are not based on any proof, so why start the other way? hey, I can assume we're all flying pigs as well
But that's not the only thing. Scientists also start with the assumption that everything follows some mathematical pattern. But what if not? If? Is there a solid evidence explaining why the world follows mathematical patterns? If it would be, then this 'proof' couldn't be explained by starting with this assumption, else you'd be biased toward the answer.
But now I'll briefly discuss stuff about evidence or proof.
Evidence = stuff that we (subjective) understand (subjective) with our five senses. The problem, as you know, is that our 'five' senses are also subjective: some people are blind, some are deaf, etc.
If we all were blind, and a different man came (the only one having eyes), tell me how could he have proven to us that light exists and that colors look the way they look? It's like explaining the theory of relativity to apes.
Simply put, if A is a scientist, and he cannot comprehend a given 'thing' (be it color, if A is blind), then he will dismiss it. And before you ask evidence for something supernatural, ask yourself this: can you see colors with your ears? no matter how hard you try?
Since you can't 'feel' supernatural things (like God for example, but not limited to ) with your five senses, why do you expect evidence, which is based on those five senses, to prove it?
Sure, you can say I am insane and that I speak nonsense, but ask yourself this first: If all creatures on this planet were ALL blind and vision didn't exist; and only ONE single man had vision, what would the others think of him? When you're difficult to comprehend by others (like Colors for the blind, when there is only one man with eyes), then they call you insane (because you're not like them and speak non-sense).
And besides, going back to scientists, they use common sense all the time to 'prove' things. Let's take for example gravity. What makes you think gravity is just a field and not some sort of fairy always pulling you to it?
Obviously the first example is what you call more 'logical' (even though it has no more proof than the fairy thing), and since both of those are explained by observable effects of gravity (i.e both pull), then why do you think the first one is a better answer than the second one?
Just because you think 'fields' are more logical than 'invisible fairies pulling you' doesn't justify any objective proof for them. Some people might find what you think it's simple to be complex, and vice-versa. Simplicity is subjective. If you think straight lines are simpler than some complex form then that's your opinion, for example. Not only that you call 'fields' more logical, but you also call the other statement with fairies childish since it's very uncommon sense... but there's no proof, only the effects of gravity
And we come to the heart of the problem, the fact that all proof is subjective. You can't prove something to someone who doesn't understand it. You can't prove gravity to monkeys because they can't get it. If they could speak, they would probably think you're crazy. the same happens with theists.
Likewise, if you don't understand the basic notions behind supernatural or (let's say) spiritual things, then it's like you throw proof to someone who doesn't even look at it (and dismisses it directly). The problem is, you can't prove vision with ears (sound), or vice-versa. Don't expect to prove spiritual stuff with eyes (the most common form of 'proof'), you'll have to use your sixth sense for that
Before you say I'm crazy and all that, look at the blind people scenario again, and consider yourself the blind people (without eyes) and me, for example, the only man with five senses instead of four. Obviously you'll call me crazy back then as well just because I 'believe' in light. I can't prove light to you because you can't perceive it in any way. Just as an example.
To sum it up: don't expect an .avi or a video from God to use your eyes (one of the 5 senses) to 'see'.
Truth, as scientists like to call it, is subjective to them: they think a given idea A is more logical than B (B could even be 'childish', but where's the proof?). A is the field gravity idea, B is the fairy pulling you idea. Which one's the truth? None can be proved, only their effects, which are the same. If you say there's no point in knowing what it's like because it doesn't affect us (i.e same effects), then sorry but that doesn't answer the truth which scientists seem to claim sooner or later; it may be irrelevant, but then how can you say it's false? Irrelevance and false are two different things. You can't say something is false if you don't know it.
And no, just because I believe in supernatural and spiritual stuff doesn't mean that I know everything. And, just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't have effects on you (like gravity for example). But if you can't see it, then you can't know it; the best thing you can do is to understand it's effects.
I know I haven't been here for awhile and I seriously doubt I have much to add.
just my 2 cents
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 15, 2007 06:23 PM |
bonus applied. |
Edited by Corribus at 18:44, 15 Oct 2007.
|
Quoting TheDeath:
Quote:
credible: that means whether you think it's sane (like 'logical' as you put it) or simply fantasy (like fairies), but this is subjective. Credibility is a human notion and therefore subjective, that means it isn't truth in any way.
No that's not what I mean at all by credibility. Credible scientific work refers to experiments done by people trained in the sciences by reputable universities, funded by unbiased sources, and published in journals that are subjected to a thorough review process by a diverse selection of the scientific community. Experiments published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, performed by John Smith, Professor of Science at Harvard University, funded by the National Institutes of Health, would be an example of a credible piece of work. Experiments published on myspace.com by John Smith, high school dropout, in his garage would not be an example of a credible piece of work. That's not to say a high school dropout couldn't come up with amazing piece of science in his garage - people have done it before - but that work would still have to be subjected to a controlled laboratory setting before it would be accepted by the scientific community.
Quote:
reproducible: this alone means that scientists already believe in something, and that is not science, trust me. They all assume (or believe) that everything is reproducible and can be repeated after several experiments. Now since this 'assumption' hasn't been proven to be the gold standard of how this world works (well actually you can't prove it), then it's also some kind of faith or assumption if you prefer.
No, that's not what I mean at all by reproducibility. Reproducibility means that an experimental result is only good if it can be reproduced by someone else using the exact same conditions. Reproducibility is a criterium required by many peer-reviewed journals for publication of a scientific work. Among other things, it ensures that the work is free from fraud. If, for instance, I report the synthesis of some amazing new chemical compound, John Smith at some other university should be able to also synthesize the same compound in the same way. If he cannot, then there's obviously something wrong with my result - either in my interpretation of the result or in the way I reported the experimental details - OR I just made it up. Papers which are deemed irreproducible are at the very least required to be rewritten. Many examples of scientific fraud have been found out by results that were not reproducible in a controlled setting, and scientists have lost their careers over such matters. Trust ME, that's the way science is done. If an experiment is done well and the conditions well-documented - hallmarks of a well-designed experiments - another scientist should be able to reproduce the result. Scientists will not accept a conclusion based on an experiment that is not reproducible, and nor should they.
Quote:
Can you start with the assumption that nothing is reproducible?
No, I think you need to start with the assumption that any macroscopic event, in principle, is reproducible IF the conditions are replicated exactly. That of course says nothing about the practicality of reproduction. Also, that flies out the window on the quantum level, but when it comes to macroscopic levels, which are essentially just statistical averages of immense numbers of quantum events, then reproducibility is a fundamental characteristic of the universe.
Quote:
But that's not the only thing. Scientists also start with the assumption that everything follows some mathematical pattern. But what if not? If?
What if elephants sprouted wings and started speaking Ancient Greek? You can get lost is philosophical conjecture if you want, but what's the point? The scientist must limit his "what if's" to the range of things that he has reason to believe in. As I've tried to make clear to Mytical, who asked why scientists don't ever stop to consider whether evolution might be wrong, that pursuing every "what if" randomly and with no reason would be pointless and would limit the progress of science. Sure, evolution MIGHT be wrong. But until you have a logical reason to even take your thought process in that direction - such as, a piece of evidence that contradicts some fundamental aspect of the theory, of which there are presently none - doing so is just a waste of time and energy. Science is a discipline based on logic and reasoning. As such, scientific inquiry is not a random endeavor. Philosophers can afford to consider every strange and bizarre possibility. Scientists cannot, and must prioritize their time, and to do that, they must logically choose their avenues of travel based on available data, not based on baseless suppositions and mere whim. I'm sorry if you don't like that aspect of science, but that's just the way it works.
Quote:
Evidence = stuff that we (subjective) understand (subjective) with our five senses.
I disagree with your definition of evidence. While often the product of what we perceive, evidence is that which allows us to make a logical connection between two things. Evidence does not consistitute proof. Usually evidence IS in the form of things we can see or hear, but it doesn't have to be. The sound of footsteps is evidence of someone else in the room, but that evidence exists whether you can hear it or not.
Quote:
If we all were blind, and a different man came (the only one having eyes), tell me how could he have proven to us that light exists and that colors look the way they look?
Light's existence can be easily demonstrated without seeing it. A simple example is that sitting in a sunny room will make you feel warm. There are also a wide range of electronic detectors that will detect light. They could be interfaced with a speaker which clicks every time a photon is incident on the detector. Now you can "hear" light and thus perceive light without seeing it. As for colors, you can just take the same example and have the detector only sense light of specific wavelengths.
What was your point?
Quote:
Simply put, if A is a scientist, and he cannot comprehend a given 'thing' (be it color, if A is blind), then he will dismiss it. And before you ask evidence for something supernatural, ask yourself this: can you see colors with your ears? no matter how hard you try?
Addressed in two points:
(1) A scientist would not dismiss a piece of data just because he cannot directly comprehend it. I work with IR and UV laser light all the time. I can see neither, yet I know they are there. Ultrasounds are used by radiologists all the time in medicine ,even though I'm pretty sure nobody can hear ultrasonic sound. The reason a scientist doesn't dismiss these things that his brain cannot directly interpret is because there's plenty of other evidence that they exist. Ghosts are another matter.
(2) Actually, some people CAN "hear colors". They have a condition called synesthesia. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia
Quote:
Since you can't 'feel' supernatural things (like God for example, but not limited to ) with your five senses, why do you expect evidence, which is based on those five senses, to prove it?
I never said I did. In fact, my contention all along is that you can't. Now, my question to you is: since you can't "feel" supernatural things, why would you expect science to have anything to say about it? All these ID wackos trying to make a scientific theory out of creationism - maybe you should direct your comments to THEM. So when Mytical asks, "well why don't you consider the possibility that there is a supernatural explanation to such and such", my reply is: why would I? I'm a scientist and science will NEVER be able to consider such a possibility. I'm certainly not going to dump evolution for a random conjecture that science will never be able to prove one way or the other.
Quote:
And besides, going back to scientists, they use common sense all the time to 'prove' things. Let's take for example gravity. What makes you think gravity is just a field and not some sort of fairy always pulling you to it?
Give me a reason to think otherwise. By your own statements above, you cannot. So your suggestion is that I should just dump science and reason and go with whatever supernatural explanation I like the best, even though my senses (science) will never be able to confirm or deny that explanation, even though I will never actually learn anything real about my world? I don't see how you would be satisfied with that sort of passive, boring existence. How can people be so uninterested in learning about the Universe?
Quote:
Obviously the first example is what you call more 'logical' (even though it has no more proof than the fairy thing), and since both of those are explained by observable effects of gravity (i.e both pull), then why do you think the first one is a better answer than the second one?
There's no evidence for gravitational fields? :confused:
Quote:
You can't prove gravity to monkeys because they can't get it. If they could speak, they would probably think you're crazy. the same happens with theists.
The difference between monkeys and many theists with respect complex scientific theories is that monkeys have not been equipped through evolution to comprehend them. Theists are just afraid of their implications. It's a difference between not being able to understand, and not wanting to.
Look, I get your point, such as it is, and in response I'll say again what I've said on numerous occasions: the only fundamental belief (the only religious aspect, if you will) to science is that all empirical observations can be explained empirically and logically. I can certainly not prove that fairies are not responsible for graivyt. Nor can I prove that they are. It will always be that way - fairies, spirits, Gods, whatevers - will always remain outside the realm of science, and so - for some - they will always remain "possibilities" because they will never be disproven. Be that as it may, as a scientist, I am really only interested in what science can tell me about the world. Since fairies are an explanation that cannot be evaluated one way or the other, I find them frankly a waste of time. It's an unproductive direction for my mental energy. Because while fairies may be a possible explanation, so are ghosts, demons, gods, purple elephants, and etc., and etc. You can go on forever listing an infinite array of such "possibilities" and not one of them will EVER have any supporting evidence - empirical evidence, from my five senses, as you put it - one way or another. As such, adopting any of these "solutions" to the gravity problem will NEVER lead to enlightment or real knowledge. If I adopted fairies as my explanation to gravity, what would I have learned? Could I really feel CONFIDENT in my understanding of reality? Could I get EXCITED about learning more about gravity? The answer is NO! Why? Because such fantastical supernatural "explanations" are endpoints. They lead to stagnation of inquiry. When the world was dominated by the Church, which dictated ruthlessly what everyone had to believe about the world, why do you think it conincided with a millenia of stagnation of scientific and technological progess? Because such groundless (empirically speaking, of course) beliefs are dead-ends. Where do you go after "fairies"? There's no more research to be done, no learning to be had. Certainly the "theory" makes no predictions that can be tested to give you confidence that your view of the universe is the correct one. Nothing. It's an empty solution, bereft of any possibility for future study. And you would criticize me for not considering it as a possible explanation?
I mean, when someone comes to me and points to a lightning bolt and asks me what causes lightning, I could either tell them "well, Zeus did it!", which of course I cannot prove or disprove but which is thus a possibility - I guess, or I could tell them about different air masses, and friction, and electric charges, and superhot ionized plasmas, and etc. And then I tell him the history of how all this stuff was discovered through elegant experimentation. Then that guy gets really excited about physics and goes on to get his doctorate and studies plasma physics and invents some radical new engine that allows us to propel man-occupied space craft to some of the moons of Jupiter. All this great stuff happens - all this new research and exciting technology because science is never ending - there IS no endpoint - the explanations for empirical phenomena, based on older explanations, lead to a real understanding of how things work, which allow us to uncover NEW phenomena that we never knew existed. And we explore space, and learn new things about the Universe and... well, you get the idea. But if I use Zeus as the explanation, the thrill stops there. That explanation is a deadend. My friend certainly isn't going to invent a plasma engine off of "Zeus makes lightning".
No, I believe in what I see, and hear, and taste and smell. Evolution gave me these things to investigate the world. Why wouldn't I use them? Why would I be satisfied with an explanation that ignores all of them, when good explanations exist that are based on what I see and hear? Explanations that open new doors to new rooms for exploration? I guess in essence what I'm saying is that nonempirical belief is just boring.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
