Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 02:11am PT
|
One of my fave evo examples is that some mammals left the land to exploit niches in the lagoons and embayments and evolved into non-terrestrial marine dwellers; porpoise, whales, etc. They came from the sea, they returned to the sea.
And the example of tree-climbing lizards becoming birds. Really love that one, being a herp fan.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 02:40am PT
|
WB, I know what you mean but IMO, it's not that science claims to know everything or declares this knowledge is the ultimate reality. 'Figuring out' evolution through DNA analyses, the fossil record, geologic history, and mathematical theorems that describe the evolutionary process do not detract from any other reality. It adds to our conscienciousness.
It's not about being able to create life. It's about continuing to gain understanding of how life on this planet has existed over time.
Darwin and Wallace and their cohorts first figured out that there was a pattern. We have the knowledge through observation and technology to understand more than ever before. To me, expanding this knowledge is not a bad thing as long as other perspectives are kept open.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 04:36am PT
|
"We have the knowledge through observation and technology to understand more than ever before."
That's exactly the problem with evolution as science.
Evolution postulates a numebr of key processes - for instance, it's totally dependent on the ideas that completely new genetic material can appear spontaneously and that this can lead to new organs and apparatuses developing.
The problem is that these processes have never been observed and can't be replicated either. Sometimes we hear desperate evolutionists try to excuse this by saying that the timescales involved are too long for this to be possible (and sometimes even the most comical extension of this, that human beings are incapable of understanding the timescales involved!).
I'm sure most people recognise that those are very weak excuses and neither changes the fact that there is no experimental evidence at all to support those postulated processes.
What's considerably more damning is that it's not as if no one's been trying to observe and replicate these processes. Years of effort and billions of dollars have been put into researching this and the result has been - well, absolutely nothing, actually.
It disturbs me that man otherwise sensible people still cling tenaciously to the idea that these ideas about evolution must, just must, be right in spite of this total lack of evidence, and shriek in indignation whenever anyone suggests another idea.
If any other theory was tested millions of times over decades and never once showed a positive result, would we still be saying it was right?
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 09:41am PT
|
Jody,
It's not the actual evolution of the virus that is the point.
It is the deductive reasoning that had to occur for scientists to come to the conclusion that because viruses evolve they have to change the formulation of the flu shot. That reasoning is based on the concepts of evolution in general.
When you are out on patrol do you just pull over people at random? Maybe from time to time. But I'd venture that you pull over people because you observe something that you reason gives you probable cause to pull someone over.
Now apply that same reasoning to all of this evolution stuff.......
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 09:53am PT
|
Blight, what are you TALKING about? I take back what I said about you being a reasonably smart guy.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 10:20am PT
|
Now we are getting somewhere...? ...!
Modern science says we are independent and we will figure everything out on our own. There is no Supreme intelligence or being who is behind evolution and creation.
Or maybe there is? But we will eventually in the future figure it out says the modern so called scientists.
The modern scientist is like the pro who never reads the manual the inventor/engineer wrote for the machine he built.
Why should I read the manual he says, I'm a pro and I've been 30 40 years in the business.
Not reading the manual and trying to figure it out is the "indirect method".
The intelligent person takes the "direct method" and reads the manual and contacts the inventor/creator/engineer of the machine to understand all the subtle contradictions and nuances that bewilder the user of the machine.
A lot of people now-a-days say that a person who takes the direct method is an idiot and the person who takes the indirect method is more intelligent.
That is the sure sign of the symptoms of the age of the Kali Yuga.
Thus it was said: "The Symptoms of Kali-yuga"
"In the Western world, theologians have been unable to scientifically present the laws of God or, indeed, God Himself, and thus in Western intellectual history a rigid dichotomy has arisen between theology and science. In an attempt to resolve this conflict, some theologians have agreed to modify their doctrines so that they conform not only to proven scientific facts but even to pseudoscientific speculations and hypotheses, which, though unproven, are hypocritically included within the realm of "science." On the other hand, some fanatical theologians disregard the scientific method altogether and insist on the veracity of their antiquated, sectarian dogmas.
Thus bereft of systematic Vedic theology, material science has moved into the destructive realm of gross materialism, while speculative Western philosophy has drifted into the superficiality of relativistic ethics and inconclusive linguistic analysis.
With so many of the best Western minds dedicated to materialistic analysis, naturally much of Western religious life, separated from the intellectual mainstream, is dominated by irrational fanaticism and unauthorized mystic and mystery cults.
Thus dharma, or true religion, which is strict and conscious obedience to God’s law, is diminishing."
SB: 12.2
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:29am PT
|
Werner,
I do not want to pick a fight but I must express myself.
From my point of view your assumptions are just as broad as the people you are trying to paint with one brush stroke. I'd venture to say that you have little true understanding of the concept of science and the methodologies and reasoning involved.
Science(once again from my perspective), following the scientific method, definitely allows for a "God" but does not mandate it. If evidence is provided and can be tested and reasoning can be applied then science definitely has room for it all.
But it seems that you can not come to terms with this.
I'd love to take the direct method but where is the manual and who is the inventor/creator/engineer?
"God", "Yahweh", "Alah", "Buddah", "Warren Jeffs", "David Koresh"?
Please advise....
There have been many times that I've seen this quote.
"Science is not out to disprove god but to reveal he/she in all his/her glory."
That is the way I think in my agnostic logic train.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:32am PT
|
The Uncle said; "I'd venture to say that you have little true understanding of the concept of science and the methodologies and reasoning involved."
Pure speculation like most of your post.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:39am PT
|
Not speculation, reasoning.
I took information from your posts and what I gleaned from them is that you have little understanding of the concept of science and the scientific method.
I'm way open to be proven wrong on this.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:41am PT
|
Blight writes:
Evolution postulates a numebr of key processes - for instance, it's totally dependent on the ideas that completely new genetic material can appear spontaneously and that this can lead to new organs and apparatuses developing.
The problem is that these processes have never been observed and can't be replicated either. Sometimes we hear desperate evolutionists try to excuse this by saying that the timescales involved are too long for this to be possible (and sometimes even the most comical extension of this, that human beings are incapable of understanding the timescales involved!).
Actually I believe that the problem is that genetic material which is the result of a chemical reaction is stable against change, that is, resistant to the alteration of it's function by random chance due to the effect of finite temperature.
The genetic material guides the production of material which "builds up" the various cells. Depending on the chemical environment, different proteins will be produced.
It is a rather common practice to insert sequences into genetic material to alter the protein production and have a gene express something that it originally didn't.
I'm sure most people recognise that those are very weak excuses and neither changes the fact that there is no experimental evidence at all to support those postulated processes.
So, while it hasn't been done to my knowledge, in complex biological organisms (though on another thread we learn that Venter claims to have made entirely artificial life out of genetic material he engineered in the lab) it is entirely possible that as we understand the details of genomic encoding that the process of creating new species could be accomplished in the lab.
What's considerably more damning is that it's not as if no one's been trying to observe and replicate these processes. Years of effort and billions of dollars have been put into researching this and the result has been - well, absolutely nothing, actually.
You like to talk in absolutes, but I think you are simply wrong on this one. A tremendous amount of research on genetics has resulted in an immense body of scientific work. There is a tremendous amount of detailed work to be done.
It disturbs me that man otherwise sensible people still cling tenaciously to the idea that these ideas about evolution must, just must, be right in spite of this total lack of evidence, and shriek in indignation whenever anyone suggests another idea.
The fact that Darwin anticipated the existence of genetic material in Origins of the Species by using the observed distribution and relationships of existing species and the temporal distribution of past species in the fossil record is a good starting point for investigating, scientifically, that idea. So far, neither you nor anyone else has shown that evolution is false.
One can hypothesize any number of other theories. Creationism is consistent with the observations, but is suffers two major problems as a scientific theory: 1) it is consistent by construction and 2) it is not testable. On the testability, the problem you have is to show that no natural agent is responsible for the distribution and relationships of species. A proof by eliminating all other possibilities.
Since creation is true by construction, and we cannot ask questions of the architect directly, we have no useful theory of the final product. It is the way it is by will of the contractor, who is unavailable for comment.
If any other theory was tested millions of times over decades and never once showed a positive result, would we still be saying it was right?
Yes, because we do science by falsification of hypothesis. However, we probably wouldn't continue using a theory if were not a source of explaining a broader class of phenomena beyond the original scope of the theory. Evolution has provided a framework in which to investigate and understand biology in toto.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:47am PT
|
".... by will of the contractor, who is unavailable for comment."
He's always available, every movement you make he's there.
And he's always commenting, you just need to adjust your vision.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:51am PT
|
Werner,
I've had my eyes and ears open for 39 years but still nothing.
What am I dong wrong?
Please advise.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:00pm PT
|
Heck no!
That is Science and that cant explain what is going on.......
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 11, 2008 - 12:28pm PT
|
OK you guys, enough is enough. When I started the thread, I hoped that we could all agree that Darwin and "The Origin of Species" were interesting, and caused us all to think more about the world. Whether or not we agree on the theory he proposed. I figured 50 posts would do it, tops, and I think was pretty clear that I didn't see any point to yet another round of unwavering belief v science.
It's not "my" thread, but I am a little embarrassed that it's gone on this long, to little if any purpose. Especially as it's off topic, I'd hoped for something a bit more constructive. Some of you guys are thrashing around like rats in a bag.
As even god took a day off, I'd like to suggest that you all do the same. Refrain from posting to this thread for a day or two, maybe even not look at it. Look around - there's some other interesting threads going on, some of which are even about climbing.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:34pm PT
|
Oh now that is intelligent discussion....NOT!
|
|
sawin
climber
So., CA.
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:50pm PT
|
A interview with god.
Q. So you believe in god.
R. Yes, in the sense I sent.
Q. So you believe evolution is fact.
R. Yes, just what I sent.
Darwin's theory has become more nuanced, with advances in scientific knowledge, but has never been disproven?
"Intelligent design" and "creationism" are not theories, in that they are not falsifiable?
ST membership and login takes me to just this post.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=568569&msg=570173#msg570173
seb
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:00pm PT
|
Uncle Doug, need to talk also....sorry MH...I will now refrain. lrl
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:03pm PT
|
Sorry MH, but I have to post this.
The thing that has been vexing me incessantly is that if......
......Humans are creations of "god", and god is all knowing and has designed everything on earth (past, present and future), then the concept of evolution IS a creation of "god" and therefore un-foulable.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:16pm PT
|
I will chew through the bag, post haste, and depart this thread.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:27pm PT
|
"......Humans are creations of "god", and god is all knowing and has designed everything on earth (past, present and future), then the concept of evolution IS a creation of "god" and therefore un-foulable."
Here is the thing Uncledoug. God created this place, then he created us as extensions of him/her Self. Then we were given dominion over this place. So while it is true that everything is made out of God, because God is all there is, it is not entirely true to say that God created everything, because in fact humans did.
It is humans who created the ego/carnal mind. This was not part of the plan of God, yet God gave us free will so He/She allows it for a time. The ego/carnal mind has created much of the mess on this planet. The ego/carnal mind is a creation of man, Just as religion is.
It is much more complex then this, but Supertopo is rarely the place for complicated explanations.
Read anything by kim Michaels for involved explanations.
http://www.askrealjesus.com/
.............
MIghty Hiker, I think this thread has merit. You got Werner involved. That alone has merit. Some folks are intractable, yet I think the exposure is good. From both viewpoints. It is interesting to see how and what each person here thinks.
Here is something funny for yall. I learned something from Lois. My ego didn't want me to admit this, but I did learn something. What I learned is that instead of trying to convince someone, you simply state your case and allow the person to make up their own minds. This does not mean that you can not clarify your position or make your case, it just simply means you are not attached to outcome and therefore you can keep your ego out of it. This makes for a more friendly environment.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!