Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 12:57pm PT
|
Blight, you have a very flawed view of science...
"If you want us to believe that multicellular life forms grew from unicellular ones, show us it happening. If you want us to believe that species can develop new limbs and organs, show us it happening.
Refusing to provide evidence to back up your a*#ertions isn't science. And slinging accusations that I don't understand science when you're clearly unable to demonstrate just exactly where my ideas are wrong isn't either. "
While I believe at some point the process of multicelluar growth will be understood in detail, it is not an assertion of evolution that what exists must exist. That is, evolution provides a theory about how it all could exist, selection and herdity being important aspects of this. You would like to prove a positive, which is not what science is about.
An explanation (theory) makes predictions and can can be tested as to its consistency with observation.
Agreement with observation is does not prove the theory is correct.
Disagreement with the observation does usually "disprove" the theory, however.
So far, evolution is consistent with the body of observation. Can you show that multicelluar organisms did not evolve from single cell organisms? I don't think so.
By the way, two different theories consistent with all the observations can not be distinguished on the basis of the emperical evidence. It is only by pushing the theories to predict new phenomena, and then going and observing/experimenting to the point that one and/or the other fails in its prediction, that the two can be distinguished.
The power of the theory is that it leads you to knowledge that you did not previously have. The theory of evolution has been an important tool in understanding biology for at least a century. There is nothing else which comes close.
Not absolute truth, but it's not clear that absolute truth is important if you want to understand most everything you see around you.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 02:31pm PT
|
*sigh*...
Why do people get sucked into these arguments? They're not even debates...
Has ANYONE'S mind ever been changed by an argument about evolution on the internet (or anywhere else for that matter)?
All of these points have been addressed and readdressed a million times (I'll bet I'm not even exaggerating). Energy much better spent on climbing, or sitting indoors working on a lab report and studying for an exam in my case, I suppose.
The people who don't believe in evolution tend to either a. not understand its actual mechanisms (natural selection being among them)or b. not WANT to understand them because they'd rather believe in creationism or "intelligent design" or whatever. Who cares?
I "believe" in evolution. Is it the end of the world if someone else doesn't?
I guess the answer to why engage in these things is because it's just an interesting flexing of intellectual muscle, or something, but to me it ceased to be interesting long ago. Is there anyone these days who gets involved in these discussions that HASN'T already had the same discussion with someone else before?
edit: very sorry... I realized that maybe that post was a little insulting to everyone involved in the discussion. Oh well, I didn't mean it that way... maybe as an eco/evo person I'm just more exposed to it and more bored with it than most.
When's it going to stop raining?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 02:38pm PT
|
"Not absolute truth, but it's not clear that absolute truth is important if you want to understand most everything you see around you."
So sorry, it is thee most important!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 02:53pm PT
|
ok, I know I should probably drop this, but I really am intrigued by people who claim that evolution is bunk. I started a thread a while back prompted by my own father's doubts. Blight, I could (and may, later, when I have some time), debunk your assertions against evolution one by one, but I want to put the onus on you.
Its been estimated that over a trillion species have come into existence and gone extinct - I don't know what a reasonable estimate of species existing today is, but it's undoubtedly in the millions. My question is, what's a reasonable alternative to evolution...that God created each of these species as is? Does He just make new ones as the old ones go extinct? Why? And what about the fact that we can classify animals into phyla, orders, families, genera and species? These catagories are somewhat arbitrary, of course, but pretty much anyone will recognize that cheetahs, lions, tigers, and lynxes are more closely related to each other than to say, wolves and all of the mammals are more closely related to each other than to, say, snails. How did this obvious hierarchical relationship among animals happen?
There are no dinosaurs anymore, but certain bone structures in birds are very similar to the dinosaur fossils we find. Why? Coincidence?. And why did the dinosaurs (and the other trillions of species die out in the first place)? Much of Darwin's work involved documenting the nature and distribution of animals between islands and nearby continental areas. He found that locations nearer each other had more closely related (but still clearly different) species than locations farther apart.
Volcanic islands pop up out of the ocean from time to time. They obviously start off with no life, but ultimately harbor lots of species, almost none of which are identical to any other place on the planet.
I could go on and on. Evolution easily explains all of this. Give me another explanation that comes close.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 03:02pm PT
|
I believe that birds are dinosaurs. And reptiles, for that matter.
Birds are awesome.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 03:10pm PT
|
Evolution is accepted, but not Darwin's theory.
It is confirmed in Padma Purana that the species of life evolved from aquatics to plants, vegetables, trees; thereafter insects, reptiles, flies, birds, then beasts, and then human kind. This is the gradual process of evolution of species of life.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 03:12pm PT
|
I never understand why on this topic religion and science are incompatible. Not being religious in the classic sense, I still think/feel that nature is miraculous. It is a miracle that an ancestor of bacteria appeared on this piece of rock 3 billion years ago, and that there are bio-chemical processess that were conserved and carry through all life forms today. I appreciate, (from a distance), the Catholic Church view that "god" started it all and accept evolution as the mechanism for the work to continue, or the Talmudic scholars who view biblical time as "relative" making room for modern science and still fitting in their view of "the beginning".
Being awestruck by nature, and always curious to learn more, is all the faith I need.
Peter
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 03:19pm PT
|
Well said Maysho. Werner, what's the difference? And why should we believe some ancient text written by persons who thought the earth was flat and was the center of the Universe?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 03:20pm PT
|
Werner, I am too humble to aspire to learning "absolute truth" and perhaps too skeptical of my own abilities to recognize it, thus I do not seek it.
Aya, my belief in science is important to me, but once we are having a scientific arguement, as I believe Blight started, it is important to conduct the argument in a scientific manner. Science is not a democracy, so it is important to hear divergent views and explanations. However, those proposing such views must do so within the strictures of scientific discourse. They cannot redefine science. The authority of the definition of science is obtained by the success of science in explaining the world around us. That is why it is so important to defend it from those who would misunderstand it intentionally to advance non-science agendas.
I also believe it is possible to believe in religion and science simultaneously, however being consistent in each practice may pose some interesting difficulties. I for one have choosen one, science. It fulfils my needs.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 03:41pm PT
|
Hm...
Did Blight bring up religion at all?
I'm not sure of its relevence to this discussion, per se.
edit: oh, Werner did.
And yes: unfortunately when arguing pro/con evolution, a lack of understanding of science makes communication difficult. But it's very difficult to address everything in a back and forth like this (not saying by any means you shouldn't try - it's no skin off my back, of course!) However, it may be more fruitful to first address the issues what basic science consists of, and proceed from there.
I'm convinced that it's all one big misunderstanding... if people only understood, there'd be no argument!
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 09:29pm PT
|
Aya, I also believe that birds Are dinosaurs, but not reptiles. -I don't think dinosaurs are (were) reptiles, but are related through a common ancestor, not unlike reptiles and amphibians.
And to at large, what Ed said about scientific rigor, don't come on the field without the equipment.
also
żBlight= Jody?
-has either/both Read origin of species?
And also, to agree with that guy who seems to have gone extinct; I think the serial extinctions over history are most likely along the lines of polarity shifts/orbit shifts etc. the extinctions and lowering populations leading to the cretacious / cenozoic boundary make the comet idea a bit too deus ex machina to be likely.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:27pm PT
|
Hey?
Where did everybody go? hahahahaha
Light weights ..... hehehe
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:32pm PT
|
Nobody left but us dinosaurs. har
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:05pm PT
|
Just sittin here, sippin a beer, trying to evolve.
Peter
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:17pm PT
|
Jay, I guess I like making the class reptilia monophyletic and throwing the birds in there with them.
They should go in the subclass archosauria, along with crocodiles (and dinosaurs)
Here're the best pictures I could find online:
And one showing the birds-are-not-reptiles paraphyly (they seem to ignore dinosaurs)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:29pm PT
|
OK .....
Darwin he does not know, he has no perfect knowledge, and he's cheating. Cheater. He does not know.
The soul, from the monkey's body is coming to human body.
Not that the monkey's body is changing into human body.
Evolution of matter. Matter cannot evolve. That is not possible.
But evolution of life, life is the origin of matter. Evolution is not of the matter, but of the life.
|
|
Jello
Social climber
No Ut
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 12:01am PT
|
OK Werner, I get what you're saying. Evolution is a scientific reality, but the cause of evolution is spiritual, not material. Ties it all together. None of us is entirely wrong. And even your explanation may be improved upon, and therefore is not, most probably, absolute truth.
EDIT: The soul, requiring greater expression/earthly experience than monkey body/mind/earthly reality allows, creates a cosmic vacuum that is filled by the emergence of human existence...evolution.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 12:55am PT
|
Nice Aya, I need to search. There was one phylogenetic tree (I'm guessing Bakker)that put the birds and dinos on the same path in a way that made non reptilean sense to me, I'll be looking. Interesting placement of turtles and croc's; I think what we think of as reptiles, today, are actually a pretty diverse bunch.
Maysho, of course, is a case of punctuated equilibrium. Seems like yesterday, thirteen years old #1 first generation friend in his teeth, leading Crimson Cringe. Some details may be specious due to lack of rigor in recording.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 01:03am PT
|
Jay - I am honestly not that familiar with all of Bakker's work, but I aquick flip through "The Dinosaur Heresies" didn't really turn up anything. I'm not disagreeing with you by any means, though - reptilia, dinosauria, archosauria, aves, etc. etc. all seem to be somewhat fuzzy.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 01:40am PT
|
Aya I don't have the books where I am now, might not even be Bakker, but I will find and post! .. about the time we will have all forgotten about this...
I see this more as comparing notes, than agreeing or diagreeing.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!