Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 07:27pm PT
|
"UD, if the theory of evolution is true (and especially if it isn't) those relatives are also YOUR relatives. LOL"
If Jody is right then you are correct.
If evolution is right, not a chance in hell, (pun intended).
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 07:31pm PT
|
"If evolution is right, not a chance in hell"
No, if evolution is correct they are still your relatives, because they are still on your family tree.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 08:01pm PT
|
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:01pm PT
|
Because one is real and the other is imaginary. But it's okay, you can still blow the whistle on the Jesus train. Probably a good adaptation for you, in your circumstances. Whatever gets you through your life.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:07pm PT
|
Sure is a lot more palatable than:
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:17pm PT
|
You notice in the Sistine Chapel image how God seems to be saying. Adam, my son, pull my finger. So that's where thunder comes so.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:44pm PT
|
I don't have the temerity to address the main question after 700 posts. But Jody there is distinct point where you separate from the others. It comes when you make an intrinsic distinction between "a compelling case" and something called "proven." There really is no such thing as "proven" in the sense that there is no possibility of refutation. I think this is the sense in which you use the word.
In the real world of ideas there is no such thing as "certainty." Everything is up for grabs - always. A lot of things have so much evidence attesting to their truth that we are willing to build other structures on them as a foundation. But if some astonishing new evidence was found everyone would say "Blimey!" and immediately start changing what needed to be changed. Not because "Blimey" was right. No,No, No. We would start changing things because the new way of looking at things might reveal even more astonishing implications.
The idea of "proven" rests on "magic". Some out of this world force has to be assumed.
We have no data suggesting this force exists. We have yet to see anything that is out of this world. Incredible things? Most assuredly. Out of this world?
Nope.
I have not seen this argument appear anywhere before. So it is not tired. What do you think?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:59pm PT
|
Jody is totally prepared to deny any scientific evidence that would provide a conclusion questioning his belief in the literal interpretation of the bible. Period. End. Stop.
For example, Jody wonders of the constancy of nuclear decay, on which the concept of radionuclide dating rests. He will not take my word as authority on this, and he need not, he can study nuclear physics and draw his own conclusions.
It is actually quite nice that science provides everyone the ability to question the world. Jody could reproduce, step-by-step the experiments that led to the demonstration of constancy of decay rate. He can write down the theory that explains the observations, step-by-step. All this is accessible to him without resort to trusting an authoritative voice.
He can do science himself, it is not a hidden art, it requires no special association, just a few simple rules to guide him, rather general, which we are taught in seventh grade (if I remember my middle school curriculum).
I have no doubt that Jody could demonstrate, himself, that the decay of nuclei are constants of nature, immutable.
What an awesome power, to understand nature. And he wouldn't have to trust the suspect words of establishment science.
Go for it Jody!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:09am PT
|
Blight criticizes science for its closed mindedness (though he didn't exactly say that, I'm generalizing with the assumption that he'll correct me later) on the matter of evolution, but a news item in the recent Science Magazine would indicate that there is not quite a unified dogmatic front against any development of the theory, see Science 11 July 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5886, pp. 196 - 197.
It reports a meeting this week to review the state of evolution and plot a way forward. One of its organizers '...Pigliucci and others argue that the so-called modern synthesis, which has guided evolutionary thought and research for about 70 years, needs freshening up. A lot has happened in the past half-century. DNA's structure was revealed, genomes were sequenced, and developmental biologists turned their sights on evolutionary questions. Researchers have come to realize that heredity is not simply a matter of passing genes from parent to offspring, as the environment, chemical modification of DNA, and other factors come into play as well. Organisms vary not only in how they adapt to changing conditions but also in how they evolve.
Evolution is much more nuanced than the founders of the modern synthesis fully appreciated, says Pigliucci. That doesn't mean that the overall theory of evolution is wrong, as some intelligent design proponents have tried to assert using Mazur's story as support, but rather that the modern synthesis needs to better incorporate modern science and the data revealed by it. More than genes pass on information from one generation to the next, for example, and development seems to help shape evolution's course. "Many things need fixing," emphasizes one invited speaker, Eva Jablonka of Tel Aviv University in Israel. "I think that a new evolutionary synthesis is long overdue."'
sounds suspiciously like science at work.
...'Beyond reason?
As the Altenberg 16 seek to modernize the modern synthesis, other unconventional ideas will be on the table. One is evolvability, the inherent capacity of an organism or a population, even a species, to respond to a changing environment. Introduced about 20 years ago, the concept can help explain why certain groups of organisms readily and rapidly diversified. Consider vertebrate toes: Amphibians have a wider range in digit number than, say, reptiles, which may indicate that the former are more evolvable for that trait, Pigliucci points out. But the question remains whether natural selection favors more evolvable organisms. If the idea of evolvability wasn't radical enough, a few researchers have proposed that organisms can stock up mutations whose effects manifest themselves only when the right circumstances arise.
Both ideas have their skeptics. "I don't believe organisms have a closet where they maintain all this genetic variation," says Douglas Schemske, an evolutionary biologist at Michigan State University in East Lansing.
Even among those coming to Altenberg, there's far from universal agreement. Wagner finds epigenetic inheritance hard to swallow. "I haven't been convinced," he says. And some outside the Altenberg 16 don't see what all the fuss is about. "I'm happy" with the modern synthesis, says George Weiblen, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Others note that some of the items on the meeting's agenda, such as the role of plasticity in looks and behavior in evolution, have fallen in and out of favor for decades. "It's like selling old wine in new bottles," says Thomas Flatt of Brown University.
But these criticisms don't faze Altenberg's organizers. The modern synthesis emerged from at least a decade's worth of discussions. "The crucial point of the workshop is bringing these concepts together," says Müller. And no one truly expects a scientific Woodstock. "Woodstock was an immensely popular event celebrating a new musical mainstream," says Newman. "I imagine this will be more like a jam session circa 1962."'
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:09am PT
|
Yes, Jody... we recognize that is what you've argued. And we continue to note how poor of a job you're doing trying. Though I will admit you did an even worse job trying to somehow inject doubt into decay rates.
What an awesome power, to understand nature.
You might think that's awesome but personally I think I'm rather difficult to understand. Nice try. Next!
On a side note I really do like what Douglas Brooks writes (a top Tantric philosopher and one of my teachers)." The greatest certainty is only the most certain probability."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:10am PT
|
no Jody, you are arguing against science.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:26am PT
|
Jody
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.
But .....
Darwin has no clear conception how the evolution is taking place, neither he has any idea about whose evolution.
He simply takes account of the body.
A body never evolves.
It is the soul within the body that evolves, transmigrates from one body to another.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:31am PT
|
Jody writes: I am sorry, that isn't good enough for me.
I think we understand that. Why do you persist in arguing when you know the argument will never be resolved?
It may not be good enough for you, but for people who actually do the science it seems more than good enough.
Sounds like your problem.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 01:13am PT
|
Jody,
Schools don't teach Evolution as fact; they teach the facts that support Evolution. They teach the scientific method and critical thinking skills, and they teach the evidence; evidence that is constantly being built upon. They teach about this solid foundation to modern biology.
We cannot provide you with absolute proof and absolute certainty of Evolution; there is none.
But you don't want it do you? Because that would contradict everything you are already absolutely certain about.
We put people in prison without absolute proof and absolute certainty. We execute people without absolute proof and absolute certainty.
Hypothetically speaking, if next year or the year after, new breakthroughs in the study of genetics and proteomics allowed researchers to map, re-create and demonstrate in every change, every detail, that led a population of animals of one species--upon being geographically separated into two populations--to become two species, unable to breed with each other after many thousands of years, would you still doubt Evolution?
Hypothetically speaking, if next year or the year after, little green men landed on Earth--who were part of a vast multi-species civilization of 100 nonillion inhabitants, that was formed tens of millions of years ago, was spread over billions of star systems in several galaxies, and traveled via a vast network of wormholes--and when they were asked what sort of God they worshipped they said that they (except for one backward population in the Scutum-Crux Arm) evolved beyond the need for such things several million years ago--would it affect your belief in God?
What would it take to convince you of Evolution?
What would it take to shake your faith in God?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 01:19am PT
|
Jody I was never taught to believe in Newton's Law. I was told it was a good representation of the way things are under certain conditions. That our knowledge of the world has improved and we now know more about how Newton's Law has to be changed under some of those other conditions.
You have a problem with quality of instruction.
Ed and yourself are now in full agreement!
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 01:50am PT
|
Poor Jodster, battling the gang single handedly.
You manage to try to poke holes in the science of evolution Jody but you've never admitted (which is itself an admission if you ask me) how old you think the earth is.
7000 years right? I bet there is Plenty of evidence to shoot that theory down.
and a simple minded interpretation of what was never meant to be literal.
Think about it man. Jesus didn't care what people thought about science or ancient myth. What matters about religion is in the heart and connection to Spirit, not in what you think about evolution
Peace
Karl
PS, Werner check your email
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 01:54am PT
|
Karl, are we the Sharks or the Jets?
and Blight should be waking up sometime soon...
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 02:42am PT
|
How did this thread get to 721 posts? it evolved legs.
|
|
hafilax
Trad climber
East Van
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 02:47am PT
|
A hoax is something that is deliberately faked in order to fool someone. My point was that the archaeopteryx fossils are real and that the people that tried to show that they were faked failed.
I tried to leave the door to interpretation open by stating that they are believed to be the closest thing we have to a transition fossil. Just because it isn't a direct line to the modern bird does not mean that there wasn't a stage in the development of the bird that looked a lot like the archaeopteryx. Again that is my interpretation. You can capitalize not all you want but it still doesn't make a scientific argument.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 04:22am PT
|
there are earlier, similar fossils (not as vivid, though)there were other bird reptile transitioners.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!