Evolution - True Or False

It's

  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ophiolite said:
Don't talk crap. The volume of human and proto-human fossils is disappointingly and frustratingly small. The constant revisions to proposed lineages and interrelationships of hominid species and genera, and to their supposed behviour patterns, are a direct result of the limited material available. If you are suggesting otherwise you are either ignorant of the facts, or working to an agenda.
Click to expand...

You are the one talking crap. Did you even read my post? There are thousands of homina fossils. In comparison, there are ten archaeopteryx fossils. What family other than hominidae has such an abundance much fossil evidence? The human evolutionary tree was a lot simpler in the 1950s because the evidence was sparse back then. The constant revision of proposed lineages of hominid species since the 1950s is partly due to the abundance of evidence, not the lack thereof.

With regard to an agenda, I have none. That evolution is a fact is undeniable.
 
Since the Darwinian lineages are under "constant revision" because of "the abundance of evidence" tells us that they are consistently finding evidence which defies their model de jour. And most of that is because they're finding relics and fossils where they shouldn't be, but the charade continues.
 
D H said:
You are the one talking crap. Did you even read my post?
Click to expand...
Yes. Curiously, before responding to any post I have found it advantageous to read it, evaluate it, dissect it, analyse it, and generally give it a thorough going over.
D H said:
There are thousands of homina fossils.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you mean hominid. Perhaps you would care to validate your claim that their are thousands of such fossils. Even if you count each individual bone of the recovered specimens you will have some difficulty making it thousands. I await your justification of this statement with interest, though little hope.
D H said:
In comparison, there are ten archaeopteryx fossils. What family other than hominidae has such an abundance much fossil evidence? .
Click to expand...
Almost any (indeed almost all) of the mollusca, brachiopoda, trilobita, echinodermata, grapolita, etc. You truly appear to have no idea of this topic at all. If you are going to discuss it I strongly urge you to get at least a smattering of an education on it first.
D H said:
The constant revision of proposed lineages of hominid species since the 1950s is partly due to the abundance of evidence, not the lack thereof.
Click to expand...
As above.
D H said:
With regard to an agenda, I have none. That evolution is a fact is undeniable.
Click to expand...
Who is denying it? Certainly not me. This gem of a non sequitur suggests you have not been paying any attention to what I have been posting.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
Since the Darwinian lineages are under "constant revision" because of "the abundance of evidence" tells us that they are consistently finding evidence which defies their model de jour. And most of that is because they're finding relics and fossils where they shouldn't be, but the charade continues.
Click to expand...
As noted above ICA, the illustrious DH is speaking out of the lower portion of his gastro-intestinal tract. The evidence is scanty and it is a tribute to the specialists involved that the path of evolution for homo sapiens is as clear as it is.
 
Last edited:
mo·ti·vate (mt-vt)
tr.v. mo·ti·vat·ed, mo·ti·vat·ing, mo·ti·vates
To provide with an incentive; move to action; impel.
moti·vator n.
Definition of motivate (verb)
forms: motivated; motivated; motivating
to prompt; to spur; to provide inspiration; to stir to action; to induce; to cause


Ophiolite said:
I undoubtedly appear to be incorrect to you. This is related to your extensive ignorance on the topic under discussion. As River Wind has remarked 'motivator' is an appalling word to use in this context, with its strong teleological implications.
Click to expand...

I am constrained by facts, Ophilolite. Fact can be a difficult concept to define
so I will not attempt to do so...

Fact:
The kind of {clause} used in {logic programming} which has no {subgoals} and so is always true (always succeeds)
Definition Provided By Denis Howe

I myself have a subgoal as well you Ophilolite in the discussion however you will frequently instruct in the direction of ignorance. Do you prefer for me to remain ignorant or is it your direction to teach?

Discussed is the evolution of aerobic organisms from anaerobic organisms and the accompanying biochemistry that developed to motivate and enable this evolution. Uses of oxygen by aerobic organisms are described. (CW)~Oxygen and Biological Evolution.

The word motivator is not my choice it is the Scientific communities choice of terms and it is used along side drive. The definition reveals that the only theological implactions of motivate are the ones we place on it or in this case that you've placed on it.

drive:
3 a : to impart a forward motion to by physical force <waves drove the boat ashore> b : to repulse, remove, or cause to go by force, authority, or influence <drive the

The other definitions are far more pronouced to conscious will than motivate. You spoke of semantics turely you would know. I percieve a fear, an evasiveness here through semantics and ridicule on your part aswell as the others to avoid a conscious direction, to dismiss any sign or semblance.

I had no intention of directing the conversation to this crossroads. I'm strictly for now on a information gathering mission. You spoke of ignorance now is your time to aleviate it. You have explaining to do and getting caught up in words you don't like is the very pinnacle of semantics. You may feel free to take part in these diversions. I live and breathe this kind of factual discussion because it's where I make my stand. The details are every bit as important as the issue at hand and I fear neither knowing one will lead to the other and together they will lead to the truth.

Drive: Motivate: syn.
Agree or disagree Opiliolite, but be prepared to spend and extended amount of time with definitions if you chose to do so.
 
Saquist said:
I myself have a subgoal as well you Ophilolite in the discussion however you will frequently instruct in the direction of ignorance. Do you prefer for me to remain ignorant or is it your direction to teach?.
Click to expand...
I have previously recommended, with all my heart and soul, that you acquire, read, study and assimilate The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Gould. Nothing I can say, write, declare, argue, or present will begin to approach what that book can do for removing your ignorance of evolution and shining a light of brilliance into almost every nook and cranny of the topic.
Saquist said:
The word motivator is not my choice it is the Scientific communities choice of terms and it is used along side drive.
Click to expand...
I always stand ready to learn. Please cite me a handful of examples wherein the scientific community use 'motivate' in the context of evolution. Perhaps I have been blind to these over the years.
 
hehe...type in motivator and evolution in pubmed. You get one hit:

Conscience. 1996 Autumn;17(3):35-41. Links
Abortion: a reader's guide.

* Hisel LM.

PIP: This review traces the discussion of abortion in the US through 10 of the best books published on the subject in the past 25 years. The first book considered is Daniel Callahan's "Abortion: Law, Choice and Morality," which was published in 1970. Next is book of essays also published in 1970: "The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Perspectives," which was edited by John T. Noonan, Jr., who became a prominent opponent to the Roe decision. It is noted that Roman Catholics would find the essay by Bernard Haring especially interesting since Haring supported the Church's position on abortion but called for acceptance of contraception. Third on the list is historian James C. Mohr's review of "Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy," which was printed five years after the Roe decision. Selection four is "Enemies of Choice: The Right-to-Life Movement and Its Threat to Abortion" by Andrew Merton. This 1981 publication singled out a concern about sexuality as the overriding motivator for anti-abortion groups. Two years later, Beverly Wildung Harrison published a ground-breaking, feminist, moral analysis of abortion entitled "Our Right to Choose: Toward a New Ethic of Abortion. This was followed by a more empirical and sociopolitical feminist analysis in Kristin Luker's 1984 "Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood." The seventh book is by another feminist, Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, whose work "Abortion and Women's Choice: The State, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom" was first published in 1984 and reprinted in 1990. The eighth important book was "Abortion and Catholicism: The American Debate," edited by Thomas A. Shannon and Patricia Beattie Jung. Rounding out the list are the 1992 work "Life Itself: Abortion in the American Mind" by Roger Rosenblatt and Ronald Dworkin's 1993 "Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom."
 
As I suspected. However a search for motivation and evolution returned 1015 hits. But the dozen or so I glanced through did not seem to be using it in the sense that Saquist claims the science community employ.
 
Ophiolite said:
I have previously recommended, with all my heart and soul, that you acquire, read, study and assimilate The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Gould. Nothing I can say, write, declare, argue, or present will begin to approach what that book can do for removing your ignorance of evolution and shining a light of brilliance into almost every nook and cranny of the topic. I always stand ready to learn. Please cite me a handful of examples wherein the scientific community use 'motivate' in the context of evolution. Perhaps I have been blind to these over the years.
Click to expand...

Ophiolite, I've catalog the book and refrences you have sited as well as others in notepad. They will be reviewed. However If you can not distill what you've glean from these text in a propper summation to propperly articulate your understanding then the ignorance is yours.

When one teaches one makes refrences but there is no refrence that can not be summarized. I'm the student and you are the teacher. All that you've accomplished is to contend with the word 'motivate". This is the height of your explanations.

Currently you want Further proof the the Scientific community uses the word motivate other than what i've anticipated you wold want. Tell me the exact number of refrences using the word "motivate" in relation to the driving force of the evolutionary process and I will find them for you...If that's what it takes to teach the teacher.

This one refrence was from memory of researching the topic of the driving force of evolution. The cross refrence of the two words was simple enough to find. Tell me what constitutes your handful and succeed or fail we will spend time teaching you your own language, definitions, and how to propperly use them.
 
Saquist I am about to leave to catch my train. You do realise your last post is the height of arrogance and rudeness. Despite such almost criminal lack of character on your part I shall condense any apsect of evolution that you require. Please indicate specifically what you want.
Secondly, for your education, the scientific community does not generally speak of motivation in relation to evolution. I would be delighted and frankly amzed if you were able to produce more than five good examples where it does. (I think you'll find five is often considered a handful.)
Now some free advice. Cut out the superior attitude and you might gain a little respect. Keep it up and you'll be taken apart metaphorically piece by tiny oiece.
 
Ophiolite said:
Saquist I am about to leave to catch my train. You do realise your last post is the height of arrogance and rudeness. Despite such almost criminal lack of character on your part I shall condense any apsect of evolution that you require. Please indicate specifically what you want.
Secondly, for your education, the scientific community does not generally speak of motivation in relation to evolution. I would be delighted and frankly amzed if you were able to produce more than five good examples where it does. (I think you'll find five is often considered a handful.)
Now some free advice. Cut out the superior attitude and you might gain a little respect. Keep it up and you'll be taken apart metaphorically piece by tiny oiece.
Click to expand...

I aspire only to you right now Ophiolite. I'll take that to mean that you found my post insulting. I beg your pardon however your own arrogance on the matter in regards to blinding ignorance established that you have assicoated your self as my intellectual superior which is defined as arrogant. To associate a behavior as wrong and to display equal qualities is the defining characteristic of a hypocrit.

Is this what you're trying to teach me...social ills. How to impropperly teach a student? Or are we on the topic How to be Headstrong and Pridefull of ones knowledge: For Dummies.

I did however find your 1 plus four more...Your handful.
And yes, you are correct. the Word motivate is used most often in terms of behavior. But there are refrences to the "mechanism motivating evolution"

NEUROENDOCRINOLOGY LETTERS
including Psychoneuroimmunology, Neuropsychopharmacology,
Reproductive Medicine, Chronobiology and Human Ethology
ISSN 0172–780X

1) The sex drive evolved to motivate birds and mammals to court any conspecifics.


2) The attraction system evolved to enable individuals to discriminate among potential mating partners and focus courtship activities on particular individuals, thereby conserving mating time and energy.

3) The neural circuitry for attachment evolved to enable individuals to complete species-specific parental duties




Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene (Paperback)

For Darwin's contemporaries female mate choice was almost an ... what he sees as
an established dogma of sex drive and reproduction motivating evolution, ...



Factors that Influence the Decision Making Process of Parents of ...
Theorists influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution have related motivation to
instincts or drives. Robert S. Woodworth (1859-1962) coined the term “drive” ...
http://ldn.tamu.edu/awresearch/BIL - Fultz Vargas_1.doc - - Cached


: MODELING THE EVOLUTION AND ...
than the evolution of the proximate mechanisms that motivate them, ... Darwin was
well aware of this fly in the ointment, and to his credit he did ...
http://www.eva.mpg.de/evolution/staff/premo/pdf/premo_dissertation_2006.pdf - - Cached
Click to expand...


Consider your sematic quota filled....

Now you may start by answering my previous questions. If any you don't understand please say so, Master, and I will obliged you clarification.

P.S perhaps you would like to clarify how you wish to be spoken to and I can do so so as that your sensibilities are not disturbed further.
 
Last edited:
Failing that Ophilolite...

If you may, difinitively outline the experiment that establishes evolutions process and the forces that motivate and or drive evolution in a method by which a Biological Law can be derived and used from this time forward.

ie: Define the Law of Evolution. A method which determines a process and leads to a conclusion which can be tested and the compared repeatedly fitting your Scientific Method.
 
saquist said:
I am constrained by facts, Ophilolite.
Click to expand...
Not well enough.

"Motivation" is specifically denied as a causal factor in the direction or physical progress of evolution, by Darwinian theory. This is perhaps the single most important difference between Darwinian theory and other proposed explanations of apparent evolutionary change, from a philosophical or logical viewpoint. The exclusion of motivation, purpose, design, etc, is fundamental to Darwinian theory. You do not appear to understand that, and thereby present yourself as completely misunderstanding the logical structure of Darwinian theory.

This, for example, which you quote, is an example of such misunderstanding:
Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene (Paperback)

For Darwin's contemporaries female mate choice was almost an ... what he sees as
an established dogma of sex drive and reproduction motivating evolution,
Click to expand...

To the extent that they are genetically or morphologically specified, "motives" are themselves subject to Darwinian evolution - effects, not causes.

You have not, btw, bothered to handle any of my own observations regarding your actual arguments here, or any of Ophiolite's structural points. You concentrate, instead, on matters of personality or attitude in the argument - as pointed out, earlier.
 
You are a bit confused I'm afraid.

Saquist said:
several articles refer to a motivator of evolution.
sexual drive...food supply...you would appear to be incorrect.
Click to expand...

1) The sex drive evolved to motivate birds and mammals to court any conspecifics.

Motivation describes behaviour, not evolution. Sex drive is a motivator of behaviour, not evolution. As it is written down in your quote. What you see there is an example of natural selection. Without sex drive there is no reproduction. With less sex drive there is less reproduction. With too much sex drive there is less reproduction (not a typo). There is no motivator that drives evolution. Natural selection selects those individuals that have a heritable trait that optimizes reproductive rates.

This kind of confusion tends to happen when you look at matters with an agenda. Such as confusing motivator with something bigger, while you merely have a clean cut example of natural selection.


2) The attraction system evolved to enable individuals to discriminate among potential mating partners and focus courtship activities on particular individuals, thereby conserving mating time and energy.

Natural selection.

3) The neural circuitry for attachment evolved to enable individuals to complete species-specific parental duties

Natural selection.


The rest is the same shit.
 
I know this is a little off topic, but I thought some of you might be interested in it:

Creature that has not had sex for 100m years

A tiny creature that has not had sex for 100 million years has overturned the theory that animals need to mate to create variety.

Analysis of the jaw shapes of bdelloid rotifers, combined with genetic data, revealed that the animals have diversified under pressure of natural selection.

Researchers say that their study “refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species”.

The microscopic animals, less than four times the length of a human sperm, are all female, yet have evolved into different species that fill different ecological niches. Two sister species were found to be living together on the body of a water louse. One of them specialised in living around the louse’s legs and the other stayed close to the chest.

Genetic analysis showed that the two creatures were distinct, a fact backed up by observations that each type had differently shaped jaws.

Asexual animals and plants usually die out quickly in evolutionary terms but the ability of bdelloid rotifers to diversify may explain why they have survived so long.

A specimen trapped in amber has shown that the animals were living at least 40 million years ago and DNA studies have suggested they have been around for 100 million years. Modern Man has notched up about 160,000 years.

It had previously been recognised that asexual animals and plants can evolve through mutations into another species, but only into one species and at the cost of its original form. Bdelloid rotifers have displayed the ability to evolve into many different forms.

The study of several bdelloid rotifers, published in the journal PLoS Biology, was carried out by an international team including researchers from Imperial College London, the University of Cambridge and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. “These really are amazing creatures, whose very existence calls into question scientific understanding,” said Tim Barraclough, of Imperial College.

He added that the two species of bdelloid rotifer almost certainly arrived on the louse as one species and later evolved to take better advantage of the environment.

There are many examples of asexual species of animals and plants, including some dande- lions. Asexuality is most common in invertebrates, such as aphids, but it is also found in a number of fish and frogs.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1539281.ece

As someone commented:

"If Sexual reproduction would be necessary fro evolutionary processes to occur, Live on earth would still be on the mono-cellular level, since they created offspring asexually."
 
Typical news article.

No scientist will ever claim sex is needed for diversity. In fact scientists still don't have the final answer why we have sex. It looks obvious on paper but apparently it isn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top