Not really politics, but Evolution... (cont. a thread)
- 01-03-2006, 07:25 AM
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
I think kwyck was thinkin of:
Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.[/quote]
Gosh, If you take away these to tactics, not ony would we have no thread. We would have no bulliten board blogs...Image if there was a filter that eliminated non sequiturs and "ad Homs" The internet would be filled with boring facts about only the things that we all could agree that are proven by a widely acceptable criteria. I prefer illogical arguments for their entertainment value.
- 01-03-2006, 09:06 AM
Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
No one in this thread has addressed the evolution of the eye. I've seen and read repeated claims that there's plenty of evidence for how the eye evolved, but haven't actually seen any presented as to how the ability to tell light from dark with a few specialized cells evolves to a modern human eye. Yes, the existence of varying forms of the eye in various species suggests it did evolve, but that's not evidence for evolution, it's merely observation consistent with it. That's the circular reasoning BP is talking about. The mechanism is what would serve as proof. It might even provide falsifiable predictions which could be investigated. And that would be the difference between evidence consistent with evolution and evidence that proves evolution.
Someone has to explain how the various parts of at least one version of the modern eye evolved and then were incorporated into the larger organ that become the modern eye. Someone has to explain how a lens develops minus a retina to focus on. Say the retina or something similar developed first, probably more likey. How did the lens then develop, and the eyeball to keep it the proper distance from the lens? How did the muscles surrounding the lens develop to focus it? How about the cones and rods as was pointed out before? Mutation and natural selection isn't enough. The more complex organisms get the more likely it would seem any mutation would be either negligible or detrimental. I forgot who said it in a prior post, but a basic version of every single part of the modern eye would have had to come into existence through random mutation and be useful in some way minus the whole so it would be incorporated into the more primitive whole and kept through the process of natural selection until it could join with the other parts, also products of mutation, and eventually become the modern eye. That's a tall order, and not something that can be proven to 99.999% certainty by looking at old bones or bacteria in a petri dish. And, since so many species have some version of the modern eye it's obviously a development that happened a long, long time ago. Primitive versions of the eye are found in cambrian fossils. That's going from a few cells to a complex organ in a relatively short time span it seems.
It would be nice instead of reading there's plenty of evidence for this type of evolution to see, perhaps, at least a proposed line of evolution that gives some plausible order for the development of the various parts of the eye and how, when and why they were incorprated. As of right now I'm the most irreligious person you'll every meet, despite what a nice set of tits might make me say occasionally, and I'm not convinced that random mutations and natural selection can take a single cell organism to a human being at the bus stop, no matter how long those processes have been in play.
The point of the thread is that we've got a common ancestor with all life. And yes, we really are primates...sorry bud.
Before I buy the 99.999% certaintly line I want to know how macro evolution occurs. I want to know how speciation occurs. I want to see evidence as to how random mutation leads to complex organs that have parts that seem fairly useless if the system isn't in place as a whole to make use of them. I want to see one example of a beneficial mutation in a complex orangism. Not examples of detrimental mutations, not examples of swapped proteins in DNA that lead to no change whatsoever. Some guesses in a book as to how this all hapens that are mathematically workable do not constitute proof.
- 01-03-2006, 09:42 AM
Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
In the cyber environment much expression is lost in the text. Differing ideas or contradictions are often received as attacks or insults. In areas that require faith (faith in faith, faith in science) there can be a great divide between people of opposite or conflicting convictions.
There has been some very very intelligent discussion here. Doing the right thing does not require being right. Be tolerant and kind to one another. I believe that is the right thing to do.
Just my $0.02 and an attempt at earning my Moderator daily wages.We live in a time where our planet suffers from two epidemics simultaneously - starvation and obesity.
Look at all these little kids taking care of the music biz, don't their business take good care of me.
I have the fire, I have the force, I have the power to make my evil take it's course.
01-03-2006, 11:22 AM
My point, in a round about way, is,
The theory of evolution is in no way a proven fact and here are a bunch of reasons why. You may not agree with everything on the site I posted, but at least directly address the points he makes rather than arguing against him. He may have some information wrong in your eyes, but that doesn't preclude his making decent arguments against the various claims of evolutionary theory.
And you saying we don't need to consider abiogenesis to prove evolution is akin to saying we don't need to consider how to build a car to have one.
01-03-2006, 02:38 PM
That's something I always found interesting too. You would think a complete theory of evolution would include the evolution of nonliving matter into living matter, but apparently not. That would seem to me to be a critical step and one that would likely give some serious clues as to how the rest of the process works on all levels as well. I understand the point that evolution deals with preexisting living systems, but those systems weren't always there and an explanation of how they came into being would seem to be necessary.Originally Posted by TheCrownedOne
01-03-2006, 04:00 PM
01-03-2006, 04:51 PM
I spotted that in a used book store once. Seemed kind of sensational in some of the claims. I wouldn't mind reading it, but I'd do it in the same way I read Robert E. Howards History of the Hyborean Age. I do think it's entirely possible human civilization, on the level of ancient Egypt before the pharos for example, might go back further than currently thought, but not a few million years back. Still, it's a pleasant 'what if' scenario and would likely make some fun reading.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
There's a lot of evidence against it though, like the lack of ruins and, more especially, the speed with which human civilization developed after agriculture was established. It's unlikely such a civilization with agriculture and domesticated animals, if it were widespread enough, would simply disappear without a trace and we'd have to start over again. Even if it did, civilizations tend to build on top of each other, and for good reason. They pick good spots to begin with. So the lack of major finds and ruins is a serious problem.
Who knows, maybe one day we will find out mankind has been walking the Earth a lot longer than we suspected. It would certainly be a very, very cool thing to know. All the civilzations in prehistory we could learn about, etc. It'd be a new scientific revolution.
01-03-2006, 05:10 PM
CDB is right. Just because math may fall in line with a Theory, it does not mean the theory is free from small or catastrophic error.
Even math fails. I have heard a story problem (ill post it when i find it) where math fails. It is weird as hell. At the end of the story problem a dollar is unaccouted for. And it is Not a trick.
01-03-2006, 05:15 PM
It is a trick. Math is infallible.
01-03-2006, 05:21 PM
I heard it like a year ago. I cant remeber how it goes but I looked at it for an hour trying to find its flaw and i couldn't.....have you heard this problem before?
01-03-2006, 05:36 PM
Yes, and although I cannot recall exactly what it was I was shown how it was an error in calculation, flawed method if you will.
01-03-2006, 05:38 PM
hmmm. ill take you word for it. but the other half of my post is still true.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
01-04-2006, 03:42 PM
It is necessary to prove that we originated from non-living matter, but it has nothing to do with the fact that we've evolved from single celled organisms, very far off from the contrary view of "Adam and Eve".Originally Posted by CDB
And, there are quite a few theories that really have a great network of information working in their favor. The Bubble Theory is working really well, especially because oil based bubble can spontaneously form lipid bilayers.
01-04-2006, 05:42 PM
no offense,,, but you just side stepped again.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
(how is it a "fact"?)
01-04-2006, 06:25 PM
It is necessary to prove that we originated from non-living matter, but it has nothing to do with the assertion that we've evolved from single celled organisms, very far off from the contrary view of "Adam and Eve".
And, there are quite a few theories that really have a great network of information working in their favor. The Bubble Theory is working really well, especially because oil based bubble can spontaneously form lipid bilayers.
^ Happy? Changed my choice of words. Evolution of all animals from a single celled organims is still theory, that's correct, but there is almost no "real" contrary evidence, aside from religious and mystical (one in the same?) beliefs.
Now, wtf did I side-step? I dunno wtf you're trying to get it. I said the the birth of a living thing from a non-living thing has NOTHING to do with the evolution of living things after that point. How is that side-stepping anything?
Refer to post #1 and read it a few times.
01-04-2006, 06:50 PM
Speaking for myself I would say yes they are one in the same. You say that like it's a bad thing.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
You can discount religion as not being "real" but in a situation like this I dont feel it is appropriate to voice that opinion. Me, and many other members believe beyond doubt that is is "real".
(I just want all of us to refrain from bashing others beliefs. You keep slipping in words that are intended to make us sound like fools.)
You can not build a house by tearing your neighbors down. Lets just address evolution.....
01-04-2006, 06:54 PM
Well you either have to believe in God or you dont. If you are a independent then you can have your own opinion on things.....but if not then most religions say that their God created man (not a cell that would become a man). Thats "wtf im trying to get at".Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
01-05-2006, 01:24 AM
Okie dokie Well, in your case (a traditional believer) can you not believe in God and evolution? IMO you can be a christian and believe in evolution...Even the freggin' pope said to start taking in what science has to offer, lol.
I'm not "trying" to make anyone sound stupid. Sorry if it comes off that way, could just be my smartass nature....
01-05-2006, 01:40 AM
got ya. For me it is one or the other.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
And the pope does not speak for me and should not be deemed as a spokesperson for Christianity.
And I would not like to be classified as a "traditional believer"....as you saw in the bible study thread, my beliefs squew far from "traditional" Christianity.
now ill step out of the way here
01-05-2006, 02:12 AM
01-05-2006, 02:15 AM
even still. I would not like to be classified with the members. just the churches original doctorine (i feel the church has strayed (and that it will come back))-just my beliefOriginally Posted by kwyckemynd00
01-05-2006, 03:48 AM
I don't know about side stepping, but here's the way I see it:Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
1) Observed evidence suggests some form of evolution took place. The empirical case is very strong. I don't doubt that at all.
2) I find it weird someone can claim 99.999% certainty for a theory whose main mechanism(s) of action are apparently unknown, when a lot of the evidence that supposedly proves the theory is merely consistent with it.
3) A theory's certainty is directly related to its testability and its ability to be falsified, and not directly related to the lack of alternative plausible theories. The latter standard denies the fact that it's possible there are alternatives that are also consistent with known evidence that we don't know and/or haven't been considered. Claiming that level of certainty on the latter standard seems to be at odds with the idea of science as inquiry and more in line with science as orthodox fundamentalism.
01-05-2006, 05:29 AM
I didn't make those claims myself, these are leading researchers claims.
Man, I wish you guys would just read the first post INCLUDING the citations (a couple of the citations are standard school books!).
There is nothing wrong with what u said CDB, but I'm not pulling these numbers out of my ass.
And, unless any of you are experts in the field, I find it hard to argue against the issue otherwise and state that their claims are ridiculous.
Again, the entire first post is full of citations to major publications and studies. Please pay attention to that.
I'm simply parroting all major research in evolution. And no, I won't take anything seriously that was written by a person with a pre-existing bias against evolution. If you're against it and just looking for bad info on it, that's not a very honest way to make a case.
01-05-2006, 06:05 AM
The same standard school books that show guesswork phylogeny trees with little to no evidence to back them up? But, to quote you directly from the first post:Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
Macro evolution and evolution in general, as most people consider it, is not proven if the mechanism is unkown. An analogy: you see an engine running and feel it and know it's hot. You know it powers a car. ANY theory as to how the engine works that fits those observations is proven, at least according to the standards you apply to evolutionary theory. You could theorize a steam boiler in a gas engine and, so long as the ability to test the theory was outside of possibility, by this standard the theory is proven. Proven and wrong at the same time. That's difference between evidence that's consistent with a theory and evidence that proves a theory. If you could test what was coming out of the tailpipe of this imaginary engine, you'd have a better idea of how it works. A similar test has yet to arise for macro evolution.Evolution HAS been proven. The Theory of Evolution has not yet been proven in regards to the mechanism responsible for our earthly beginnings.
The Theory of Evolution states that we basically evolved from simple proteins into prokaryotic bacteria, into eukaryotic bacteria, etc, into all the different kingdom's of life that exist today.
Certain mutations happen over time, that's easy to see even in humans. Founder diseases are good example. These are genetic disorders that, when you have two copies of the gene can **** you up, but when you only have one can give you an advantage. They show up as a mutation in a consistent spot on a string of genetic material called a haplotype that's shared in shortening lengths over time by all descendants of the first person who had that mutation. Sickle cell anemia is one example. It originated in area where malaria was rampant, and having one copy of the founder gene for SCA can help you survive malaria. Two copies and you are screwed. But, it's a long, long throw from something like that and saying an eye or a pancreas or a stomach or a liver or a brain or any other complex organ can develop along similar lines. Or even that a single cell life form can develop into a multi cellular life form. Is it possible? I'd say it's more than possible, it's likely. But likely and 99.999% aren't the same thing.
As far as adaptation yes, you're right. It's observable, testable, etc. It's not hard to figure out. Founder diseases might fall into this category. I don't think anyone is arguing against the ability to adapt. There are some, I think Dawkins was one, among the Darwinist crowd who think natural selection is all you need to go from a single cell organism to a complex one like ours. Maybe that's an uneducated interpretation of Dawkins' work I've heard, who knows.
But the bottom line is no matter what the scientific community says 99.999% certainty isn't applicable here. You can't be 99.999% certain about something if you don't know how it works. The scientific community was 99.999% certain of a lot of things considered quaint and archaic at this point in time. There's nothing magical about our day and age that makes us so much more closer to the truth of things, and you can bet in a few hundred years people will look back on the versions of the various theories that were being considered today and consider many of them ridiculous.
Some form of evolution occurs, of that I have no doubt. But until the specifics are available anyone who claims 99.999% certainty is putting the science aside and speaking from a position of defensiveness against those who simply don't believe them for whatever reason.
Think about this question: why is it impossible to test the macro theory? Is there any particular reason why single cell lifeforms would stop evolving into multicellular, complex life forms? Why are there no very simple organisms alive today that we can trace to known single cell ancestor that's not precambrian? Assumedly evolution is a continuing process, so there should be such examples. Or, for some reason evolution of single celled life to more complex life stopped for some reason. Anyone know why?
Maybe those questions have answers, maybe they don't. As long as so many questions remain unanswered 99.999% certainty doesn't exist. And people who express 100% belief in evolution are in effect no different than someone ho expresses 100% belief in God. After all, the latter type of believer sees plenty of untestable 'evidence' that's consistent with the existence of their deity, don't they?
01-05-2006, 11:27 AM
01-05-2006, 11:31 AM
Well, that's a pretty good way to get nowhere. That sounds like the cry of a religious zealot. A person's negative feelings toward evolution don't preclude their making valid arguments against it.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
01-07-2006, 11:14 PM
I would not have problems believing in evolution if it would be proved 99.99...9% like you say in every single post, but it's waaaaaa...aaay less than that. And as of today Bible makes more sence to me, than your "theories"Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
01-07-2006, 11:40 PM
Scientifically and from a biological standpoint its obvious we evolved from a lesser bi-pedal species and that, that species evolved from an aquatic animal. This was all part of God's spectacular plan. We are still evolving, consider the higher incidence of ADD and ADHD diagnosis. Eventually we (as a species) will inhabit space and other planets evolving even more as we breed and adapt to other environs, such as zero gravity. Perhaps all these hormonal type supps that are being discovered, researched and marketed will lead to a product that attenuates the muscular effect of prolonged exposure to zero gravity, disease, and aging, the legendary soma. A true fountain of youth, eternal life!
01-10-2006, 05:10 PM
If we are going to talk in terms of ID then I doubt (completely) that God would want us to live forever yet still be in a mortal state. I know I would not like to live on earth/be mortal forever. I love my life but if we knew how wonderful heaven was we'd be thinking "get me out of here!"Originally Posted by Knowbull
and to respond to the beginning of you post. It may seem "obvious" to you but dont profess it as fact. I want whole truths not "probable" ones.
How can you guys say that evolution is 99% proven? You can't even explain how non living matter turned into living. I would say that part is a hundred percent of the story; and then how we evolved would just be a side note in comparison.
01-10-2006, 07:15 PM
Unfortunately it appears to be a matter of conjecture, we can only attribute the unexplainable to the absolute existance of a supreme creator. Peace
01-12-2006, 10:00 AM
I think one problem people are having here though is they seem to think that there are only two possiblities:
either current evolutionary thoery is right or ID is right.
This is not the case and is an example of a false exclusionary tactic. It also seems to be coming from the ID camp almost exclusively. The reason being, ID has NO scientific evidence to SUPPORT it. The only evidence proponents of ID use are not evidence for ID but evidence against evolution. The other problem is that their supposed evidence against evolution is not evidence against it so much as evidence of gaps in development of the theory. Nothing anyone has said so far actually counters anything evolution says. All it does is bring up questions that evolution in its current state does not answer.
Evolution IS a theory. Yes. It has not been proven. Correct. However, it has evidence to support it, a great deal of evidence. NOT conclusive though which is why it is still a theory and not yet declared law.
ID however is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis. The reason being there is absolutely positively NO evidence backing it whatsoever.
01-12-2006, 11:48 AM
With the exception of everything around you.Originally Posted by Nullifidian
(and there have been plenty of post that counter evolution.) How could we disprove it if we all blindly took it as fact? If we just trusted it as true we would not question it. What the ID people have been doing is the only option.
01-12-2006, 12:03 PM
01-12-2006, 01:13 PM
If it is so wrong then by all means, post evidence that supports ID specifically. Keep in mind that "feelings" are not evidence, and emotional statements like "watch a baby being born" have absolutely ZERO scientific merit whatsoever.Originally Posted by DmitryWI
I do not hold evolution as a theory to be perfect. HECK no. That's why I still call it a theory, because it is incomplete. However one thing I DO recognize is that the limits on what we currently know are limited almost entirely on technology. We do not currently have the technological means to simulate millions of years of evolution in order to prove macroevolution takes place.
Furthermore, we do not have a thorough enough understanding of the mechanisms of DNA yet in order to even predict what kinds of mutations would yield which results. Thus not even MICRO evolution can be predicted. However because microevolution happens in a relatively quick time scale and with great abundance, we are capable of witnessing it in a lab firsthand rather easily.
So as I said, go and post some direct evidence that supports ID.
01-12-2006, 01:25 PM
well thats a nice loop hole for you.... (its like your saying "it cant be proven so we have to take it as fact".)Originally Posted by Nullifidian
And ID is not under debate here. Evolutions validity is. Please, no one post ID stuff because Nullifidian told you to. That is not the point of this(and even if you make a good argument, it will still fall on deaf ears). Lets stay on topic okay.
.......where is Parzival when we need him.
01-12-2006, 02:53 PM
I would call ID a theory. A poor theory in my opinion, but still a theory. The basic thrust of it is that evolution of any kind from the simple to the complex on a scale necessary to explain the variety of life around us is impossible, therefore God must have created the world. There's at least an opportunity to falsify this, simply by showing the proving the theory of evolution. There's also an internal problem in that if evolution is impossible it's impossible for God, who is supposed to be all powerful, to design a system that would evolve along Darwinian lines.Originally Posted by Nullifidian
So while being a bit shoddy it's still got the main characteristics of a theory. It's falsifiable, so testable to the needed extent, and it's based on observed evidence, or at least what certain people would qualify as evidence, rightly or wrongly.
So, proving the case for evolution would disprove ID as it stands now. I've yet to see a way to falsify evolution.
Nice to see you in the thead Null. A point where seem to agree. Make a habit out of that and I'm going to stop responding to you.
01-12-2006, 02:59 PM
not sure what you are saying here?Originally Posted by CDB
Its not that we think God could not do it. Its that we believe we where created in his image.
01-12-2006, 03:13 PM
Well it can be proven that not all beings that exist today existed as they were many years ago. Australia is the perfect example of this.Originally Posted by Whiskey Steve
All species of mammals living on the continent of Australia, excluding migratory birds, at the time the very first European settlers arrived there are exclusive to Australia. No animals outside of Australia (excluding marine wildlife and migratory birds), are found in Australia.
If you try to use the flood as an excuse for the fossil record, then it is quite odd indeed that the ONLY fossils of creatures found in Australia are also only found in Australia.
In order for the flood story to be true, all of the creatures from Australia would have had to swim across the ocean to Turkey, so they could be loaded onto Noah's Ark. Then after the flood was over and Noah landed (once again, somewhere in Turkey), those same creatures went and swam all the way back to Australia. That scenario is in fact impossible. But of course, I'm sure ID people will just say "God did it". This is precisely the same as saying "it's magic" and one would hope that kind of primitive thinking left the civilized world at the very least in this past century if not hundreds of years ago.
In any case, the aforementioned scenario PROVES that whatever flood MAY have occurred, it could not have engulfed the entire planet. This means that the flood cannot explain fossil records. Since the flood was the manner in which ID explains fossil records, this disproves ID.
01-12-2006, 03:27 PM
This wouldn't be relative to that aspect of your personal belief, but a criticism of a specific claim of ID. ID claims evolution is impossible. But, that would deny the possibility that God could design an evolutionary system. There's nothing about evolution that per se denies the existence of God or that we're created in his image.Originally Posted by Whiskey Steve
01-12-2006, 07:34 PM
This is an age old discussion, science has posited concrete evidence regarding evolutionary matters, on the other hand, since God is beyond time and space a person could say, in a relative sense, yes God commanded it to be and it was. Time is completely out of the equation because time did not exist "in the beggining"
Similar Forum Threads
- By Konvicted in forum Powerlifting/StrongmanReplies: 25Last Post: 09-11-2008, 02:24 AM
- By Outside Backer in forum General ChatReplies: 3Last Post: 10-26-2005, 05:33 PM
- By Guido in forum AnabolicsReplies: 15Last Post: 08-01-2005, 05:14 PM
- By JTrans in forum General ChatReplies: 2Last Post: 11-15-2004, 10:27 PM
- By WannaGro in forum AnabolicsReplies: 15Last Post: 10-13-2004, 04:26 PM