Denial of Evolution VI.

Status
Not open for further replies.
aqueous
it is wrong of you to imply darwins finches has solved the riddle of evolution, and certainly wrong in implying it has solved the riddle of life.

here is a paper from gould that explains why this is so:
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/20/10750.full

gould also introduced PE.
both spandrels and PE was introduced because darwins finches and the inferred method of propagation does not explain evolution.
 
aqueous
it is wrong of you to imply darwins finches has solved the riddle of evolution, and certainly wrong in implying it has solved the riddle of life.

here is a paper from gould that explains why this is so:
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/20/10750.full

gould also introduced PE.
both spandrels and PE was introduced because darwins finches and the inferred method of propagation does not explain evolution.

You don't understand what you've posted. No surprise there. Gould isn't saying that adaptations don't occur, only that some things that look like adaptations could actually be exaptations.
 
Aqueous Id,

It's the best thing that could happen (taking biology) to a person who believes in supernatural creation,

If the person who takes biology ends up being closer to the truth because of his/her taking biology, then I would agree with you, but that
is clearly not the case. It also implies that people who take biology are closer to the truth than people who don't, therefore everyone who studies biology
knows more truth than those that don't.


...to study the Artisan's works with a fine tooth comb, and clear some of the fog surrounding the question of what the Creator-Deity did and did not do.

The first thing one must understand is that ''truth'' must experienced, otherwise it is second hand information. The second thing is that, if there is a ''Creator-Diety'' (upper signifies person?), then that person, like any other person, has a purposeful intention behind their actions.


It's knowledge, even if the person only recalls the conclusions. Apparently they remember that the logic was sound, even if they're unable to repeat it.

You're just playing sides. Sticking up for your side.
The reality is, like you, and everybody else, they don't know. They have simply chosen something that relates to their current world view and lifestyle.


How about knowledge - facts, evidence, and the valid logic that assembles them into a truthful conclusion.

Intellectually? Maybe. But how many people live their moment to moment life in this mode.
Faith and belief are constantly working, up/downgrading as new experiences/data comes in, consciously as well as subconsciously. To think of them in the block terms
you say, is not in real time.

jan.
 
Last edited:
No, but it's an excellent start.



"Poor knowledge" does not equal "no knowledge." You likely don't know too much about nuclear fusion, but you probably accept that our Sun runs via fusion.



Faith is belief with no proof at all.

Yes, it is an excellent start to learning about biology, but biology isn't ''truth'', and not learning biology does not mean you can't realise the truth.
an elitist (which I believe you are anyway). This is no different to the Christian institute which went around the world claiming it's superiority.
thing. To say that one cannot know the truth because one hasn't taken a biology class, is to say that one doesn't know anything, and the biology student is a superior human being. It's the same old bullshit, the white middle class society are the arbiters of knowledge because they can afford it, and everyone else must be subservient.

Faith is not belief, and it is not based on ''no proof at all'', it is based upon upon what you do know to carry you through a situation in which you do not know how it will turn out. If the worst of that action is that you may scratch your finger, then no faith is necessary. If it could mean you lose your house, job, and car, then your faith will naturally increase. IT'S ALL IN REAL TIME MAN!!!!.

jan.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with believing things for no other reason than because you want to? Mostly nothing, unless your beliefs actually matter in decision making, like whether we control CO[sup]2[/sup] emissions to reverse global warming, or whether the things we teach our children about our origins are supported by evidence. I think in general, aligning one's beliefs about the world with what we observe about the world is important.

No. What wrong with people accepting evolution but believing God was behind it?

jan.
 
I didn't say biology is a falsity.
I said it isn't the truth. The truth is absolute otherwise it's not the truth. It may contain truths, or factual information, but it is not the truth.

jan.
Do you then agree that biology "contain truths"?
 
leopold,

in what way is this an example of "intelligence without substance" ?

The explanation does not require any exterior substantial data to know that intelligence is the cause.

me said:
It all depends on where you think life came from. It would be odd to postulate that life was created without a reason.

it would be no different than a molecule of salt forming because sodium and clorine came close to one another.
the very same reasoning applies to organic chemistry.

In same way you could say that all actions can be reduced to this level of impersonalism, but it doesn't lead to any real answers, because you wouldn't reduce
life (your own) to that. Not even if you were an eminent biologist.

We represent life. Meaning we are what life is. The study of micro-organisms, is to study a part of ''life'', but ultimately, life is what we're doing now, and that's the part that interests me.


correct, science formulated the scientific law of biogenesis long ago.
lab tests the world over has confirmed that law over and over and over, there has been NO evidence against it.
this in NO WAY says there must be a god.
there are 2 things you can conclude, actually 3 if you count the god scenario:
1. life has always existed and therefor infinite.
2. life employs some kind of interdiminsional effect.
3. there is a god.

I don't think it is about postulating ''there is a god'', anymore than postulating ''there is a linage''. ''There is a god'', is for me, common sense.

in my opinion the god scenario doesn't fly.
correction: the god depicted in the bible as creator doesn't fly.

Does it matter whether or not it flies?

It explains in the Bible that God is creator. Do you think you were created by God?

Too much focus is put on stuff that doesn't matter. :)

jan.
 
Just because it's cool...

Lizard Fossil Found: 23-Million-Year-Old Remains Preserved In Amber In Mexico (PHOTO)
The Huffington Post | By Meredith Bennett-Smith
Posted: 07/11/2013 1:52 pm EDT | Updated: 07/13/2013 4:21 am EDT


lizard%20fossil%20found.jpg

Photo

A beautiful gem or a scientist's dream? You can have both, as researchers in Mexico recently discovered after finding the remains of a 23-million-year-old lizard fossil, well preserved with soft tissue samples, in a small piece of amber.

Amber often contains small remains of plants and animals, but it is rare to find complete vertebrates such as this lizard.

While it's currently too early to confirm the small lizard's species, preliminary examination suggests the important specimen might be a new species belonging to the genus Anolis. This means that the little guy may provide an invaluable opportunity to learn more about an evolutionarily important and impressively adaptive species.

After all, Anolis lizards have fascinated scientists for years, and have provided researchers with an on-the-ground look at evolutionary processes at work. In 2012, a study involving brown anole lizards in the Bahamas was heralded for its documentation of natural selection, according to LiveScience.​

Further on the Anolis genus:
Like something out of a reality-TV show, scientists released pairs of small lizards onto tiny uninhabited islands in the Bahamas and watched what happened. Rather than playing for money or fame, the reptiles played for survival, allowing the voyeuristic researchers to witness the interaction between evolutionary processes rarely observed in nature.

After several years and multiple generations of lizards, the researchers found that both natural selection — whereby traits that enhance survival get passed down from generation to generation — and random processes contributed to the animals' genetics and their physical characteristics.

"We were actually able to see these processes and document them happening in a natural environment," Jason Kolbe, a biologist at the University of Rhode Island who led the study, told LiveScience. "We know that islands are colonized by new species over time, but we are rarely there to see it happen."​
LiveScience

I realize that even a plethora of examples of evolution at work will not sway the creationists but this is just way cool...
 
Randwolf,

I realize that even a plethora of examples of evolution at work will not sway the creationists but this is just way cool...

Okay you've given me a piece of information.
What would you like me to do? Accept darwinian evolution as true?

jan.
 
I believe I explained my position and request, in my initial post to Rav.

jan.
Wow jan. It would have taken a lot less keystrokes if you would have just typed "yes" or "no". As in a direct reply to a direct question. Try it sometime...

Again:
Originally Posted by Randwolf
Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
Originally Posted by Randwolf
Do you then agree that biology "contain truths"?

Of course.

jan.

Cool. Do you think that Darwinian evolution is contained in the set of "truths" in biology?
Well?
 
Yes, it is an excellent start to learning about biology, but biology isn't ''truth''

No? You breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide isn't "truth?" DNA encoding genetic traits isn't "truth?" Interesting claim.

and not learning biology does not mean you can't realise the truth.

Not learning biology means it will be very hard to understand any truths about biology.

an elitist (which I believe you are anyway).

If "elitist" means "someone who bothers to learn how the world works" - I will gladly take your insult as a compliment.

To say that one cannot know the truth because one hasn't taken a biology class, is to say that one doesn't know anything, and the biology student is a superior human being.

No. You can know other things, and you can learn about biology other ways. Taking a biology class is, however, an excellent way to learn about biology.

Listening to you whine about this is like listening to someone complain that they want lots of money but they don't want to do any work.

It's the same old bullshit, the white middle class society are the arbiters of knowledge because they can afford it, and everyone else must be subservient.

Go to a community college; take a free class. Take a free online class. All it takes is your time.

If you can't be bothered, and ignorance doesn't bother you, then you don't have to. It's a free country.

Faith is not belief, and it is not based on ''no proof at all''

Yes it is.

"God never did anything for me, and I've never seen any indication that he exists."
"I know, that's why you gotta have FAITH!"

it is based upon upon what you do know to carry you through a situation in which you do not know how it will turn out.

If you want to "carry through a situation" more knowledge is better than less. If you have a serious infection and you "don't believe in biology" you're probably going to die. If you do understand biology, and understand sterile technique, the use of antibiotics, the use of immune-system boosters etc the odds of making it through that situation go way up.

If the worst of that action is that you may scratch your finger, then no faith is necessary. If it could mean you lose your house, job, and car, then your faith will naturally increase.

Let's say you have two people who worry about losing their house, job and car in the future.
Person 1 goes to school, goes to college, gets an MD (or an RN degree, or an MBA, or even a Bsc in biology) and then gets a good job in a hospital.
Person 2 plays video games 14 hours a day and just "has faith" it will all work out.

Who will, in the long term, be more likely to keep their job, their house and their car?
 
leopold,



The explanation does not require any exterior substantial data to know that intelligence is the cause.
okay.
where is this "god brain" at? the missing mass of the universe?
now there's a thought.
the "god brain" uses string theory to transmit its will.
In same way you could say that all actions can be reduced to this level of impersonalism, but it doesn't lead to any real answers, because you wouldn't reduce
life (your own) to that. Not even if you were an eminent biologist.
trust me, chemists can reduce any human to the exact atoms required.
the problem is getting them back together, alive.
We represent life. Meaning we are what life is. The study of micro-organisms, is to study a part of ''life'', but ultimately, life is what we're doing now, and that's the part that interests me.
the thread is basically about life, how it got here, how it spread.
"we" are not what life is, plants and animals are also alive.
''There is a god'', is for me, common sense.
you know, i just don't know what to say.
i know this, you wouldn't like it too well if some scientist said "god did it" . . . or maybe you would.
no, there's no common sense nor ground
Does it matter whether or not it flies?
it does to science.
Do you think you were created by God?
i was created by the twinkle in my dads eye met by the passive resistance of my mother.
i guess it could have been godlike to them.
Too much focus is put on stuff that doesn't matter. :)

jan.
ALL of it matters, some more than others.

edit:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...Darwinian-view-of-evolution-dead-and-outdated
 
Last edited:
Wow jan. It would have taken a lot less keystrokes if you would have just typed "yes" or "no". As in a direct reply to a direct question. Try it sometime...

Again:
Well?

Darwinian evolution includes what is termed ''microevolution'' which is proven to be true, and is accepted by every single person. So yes it contains truth which can be amplified through the study of biology. But the truth of the matter is not purely a biology find, meaning we can come to that conclusion without studying biology.

jan.
 
Last edited:
billvon,

No? You breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide isn't "truth?" DNA encoding genetic traits isn't "truth?" Interesting claim.

Biology is able to give a more indepth explanation of a process we already know (even if we aren't aware of the details), IOW the truth is already known to us.

Not learning biology means it will be very hard to understand any truths about biology.

I think, not learning biology means it will be very hard to understand the biological detail that biology provides.

If "elitist" means "someone who bothers to learn how the world works" - I will gladly take your insult as a compliment.

No it doesn't mean that.

Taking a biology class is, however, an excellent way to learn about biology.

I've already said this. :rolleyes:

me said:
To say that one cannot know the truth because one hasn't taken a biology class, is to say that one doesn't know anything, and the biology student is a superior human being.

Listening to you whine about this is like listening to someone complain that they want lots of money but they don't want to do any work.

That's not whining. I'm showing you how crap systems work. It's the same with religious institutes, they say they are suprerior human beings if you don't accept their way of thinking (their way of thinking includes all aspects of life like yours).

Go to a community college; take a free class. Take a free online class. All it takes is your time.

If you can't be bothered, and ignorance doesn't bother you, then you don't have to. It's a free country.


Ordinarily it would surprise me that you can't see how exact your attitude is compared to a ''fundamental'' religious organisation, but I've got a good idea of how this psychology works now. Maybe you should relax from biology for a while and study some psychology.

me said:
Faith is not belief, and it is not based on ''no proof at all''

Yes it is.


It may appear that way, but it isn't.
With faith there is no time, choice, or knowledge. Faith is something that kicks in, not something that lingers.
Me saying I have faith in God, means nothing until that faith is tested. Belief in something is based on what you already know, and make logical conclusion. That there is no proof, is a given, for ANY kind of belief (I hope I don't have to spoonfeed you the reasons why).


"God never did anything for me, and I've never seen any indication that he exists."
"I know, that's why you gotta have FAITH!"

What is this?
Some kind of cryptic code?


If you want to "carry through a situation" more knowledge is better than less.


Sure! But we don't have knowledge of everything, so some things have to be taken on faith until the reality of the situation becomes apparent. At that time we have knowledge.

If you have a serious infection and you "don't believe in biology" you're probably going to die.

People express their ''belief'' in biology by seeking the advice of someone who is knowledgable of biology, namely a doctor/physician.

If you do understand biology, and understand sterile technique, the use of antibiotics, the use of immune-system boosters etc the odds of making it through that situation go way up.

Not everyone has access to that body of knowledge (for various reasons), so it's makes sense to train people that do, to help the people that don't. This is the mark of an intelligent society.

Let's say you have two people who worry about losing their house, job and car in the future.
Person 1 goes to school, goes to college, gets an MD (or an RN degree, or an MBA, or even a Bsc in biology) and then gets a good job in a hospital.
Person 2 plays video games 14 hours a day and just "has faith" it will all work out.

It's not every situation where your training and knowledge is going to be specifically adequate, or you might not be in the right state of mind, or have the time, to think things through.

For example, if you can't swim, but have knowledge of the mechanics of how a body floats and moves through water, that knowledge may not be sufficient in the event of your boat capsizing. The best knowledge one could have for survival is knowing how to swim.

jan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top