Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 03:58am PT
|
Wow, woke up off the couch to wrap my mind around "punctuated equilibrium"?
thanks, Jaybro, I think! Was 16 then, but looked 11.
Look me up next time you come up to Donner to climb or skate ski!
cheers,
Peter
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 07:51am PT
|
Thanks Jay.
Bakker, reminds me when I saw Jurassic Park II in the theather. I burst out laughing when the character that was clearly supposed to be Bob Bakker was eaten by the t-rex. I got a "wtf was so funny?" look or two...
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 09:30am PT
|
So instead of waking up in the Black Canyon this morning - the plan up 'til late yesterday, I'm here, in Golden, and it's snowing outside. Well, at least there's this thread...
That phylogenetic tree reminded of something, and Maysho actually said it - everything that is alive today and everything that ever lived at all - we're all from a single tree of life. To me, that's the biggest thing you can take away from Darwin's theory of evolution. There's more to the theory, of course, but the fact that every animal and plant alive today are cousins (like Jello and George), to me, is very profound.
As to the compatibility of the science to religious beliefs, I agree, as suggested by Maysho, that they are not inconsistent - but there are some parameters here. My point is that we do not call on arbitrary supernatural intevention to explain how we breathe, how the earth revolves around the sun, or how babies develop from fetuses. Why does the anti-evolution crowd feel differently about the origin of species. What's the big problem with having evolved from earlier life forms. It's a simple and beautiful idea. If you take man out of the mix, or as soon as you start calling on special, supernatural intervention to explain one species, this whole beautiful edifice crumbles. And you're left with something like "God creates species at his own whim".
Back to the thread topic. Although I like the works of Stephen Jay Gould (and I'm currently trying to get through his opus, 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory', I'd rather read Darwin. After Darwin himself, I like reading Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is amazing in his ability to convey difficult evolutionary concepts.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 09:41am PT
|
eeyonkee, I'm with you. Personally, I'm an aetheist, but I've never quite understood why some people are so devoutly anti-evolution (perhaps that's the reason why). But to my mind, it seems that it would be infinitely more satisfying to believe that God created evolution to yield the diversity of animals we have today - the beautiful, cruel, whatever-other-adjective-you-like world. But maybe that's why I'm an aetheist. We shouldn't really confuse not-accepting-of-evolution and religious, also; the two are not interchangeable. Either way, it's astounding to me that such an ultimately simple process can yield such profound results.
On a related note, a couple of months ago I saw the Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History here in NYC. It was interesting to see some of the original notes that Darwin took, but I seem to recall that I was overall somewhat underwhelmed.
eeyonkee, have you given Ernst Mayr a go? For example, Evolution and the Diversity of Life. It's very accessible, easy to read and quite comprehensive and interesting - I'd heartily recommend it if you're looking for books to read on evolution!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 10:05am PT
|
Raymond, I just read that link from Dawkins - great stuff! Dawkins DOES have a way of 'cutting to the chase'. And thanks for the recommndation on Ernst Mayr, Aya. I've heard of him, but have not read him.
By the way, my interest in evolution is because it's so profound and extremely interesting. The anti-evolution crowd is always talking about how even proponents of evolution can't agree on some things. Well, duh! Life, it's origins, and how it all works is kind of a complicated thing. That doesn't, by any means, mean that it's so complicated that you have to throw up your hands and say this cannot be understood without throwing supernatural arguments in the mix.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 12:33pm PT
|
Yeah, I'm with you guys I don't get the indignation. What's with the gleefeull decleration that the Great unconformity, disproves science, and proves the earth 6k years, for instance.. The religous and scientific realms don't compete, they are seperate shperes.
Dawkins is great haven't read Mayr.
I saw an interview with bakker once where he said, "I got to get eaten in that second movie!"
You know, it seems like, from a certain viewpoint, you take the interelatedness stuff the onk mentions as evidence Of the likelyhood of god.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 01:05pm PT
|
"is a variant of an argument from ignorance"
&
""Because science can't figure out exactly how species change, it must be God who causes it to happen." (See, for example, Intelligent Design)"
why this need?
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 01:19pm PT
|
Poor Blight. We argued this for months in the days of Jody. feel free to reread. What was it, over 700 posts in three topics by the end?
What is it you are afraid of, Blight? Death, monkeys, or images of your rotting corpse getting eaten by bugs? Or maybe you are secretly afraid you have no soul? You do live in California (probably) afterall.
xoxo
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 01:30pm PT
|
Blight is correct in stating that the modern scientific processes is defective.
THEY DO NOT KNOW ULTIMATELY!
ALL mental speculators and theorists.
It's not a popular platform to say this, they (modern science will try to kill this consciousness). To bad.
It will never die .........
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 03:40pm PT
|
I see this more like when you once posted, "there is a place for the mechanic" or similar, Werner, a while back. Still don't see the need for conflict in this.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Salt Lake
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 02:15am PT
|
This is what I love most about evolution, friends: My dad's ice ax had a steel
head, over 2 lbs.--my ice ax is "aircraft aluminum" about 8 ounces--If, someday,
I'm lucky enough to have children, their ice axes will surely be titanium.
But hey, Rokjox, what's this about women prefering men with less simian
hair? Most of my heroes were hairy guys!
It's terrible to feel out of sync with the sacred tenets of Darwin.
I guess that means no children, and no titanium ice-axes!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 11:46am PT
|
Richard Dawkins...on the Colbert Report? No way! I'm going to wait for my girlfriend to get up for this one. Other good Dawkins books; The Blind Watchmaker, the Selfish Gene, and River of Eden (or something like that).
On one hand, it's too bad that Dawkins is such a vocal anti-religious guy, in that he undoubtedly turns off science-embracing religious types. His insights and explanations of how evolution works are just top-notch. Personally, I'm interested in the science.
On the other hand, his arguments against religion are so cogent. In that link provided by raymond, he states how incredulous it is to him that a scientist could reject all of his training and the evidence he sees with his own eyes and instead take the leap of faith that some old texts (the old testament) documenting the local creation myths of a camel-herding people, are correct. I copied a paragraph from this below.
Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.
To Aya's contention that nobody ever persuades the other side in debates like this, sadly, he's probably correct. But this is not just about flexing intellectual muscles. We can't just give in, here. The magical thinking that is so prevalent in the world today IS something to be afraid about.
Werner, that absolute truth stuff that you're always talking about - let me tell you, it scares me right to the bone. Not your's in particular, of course. But, that's the same kind of thinking that the suicide terrorist has. They've just read a different book (written by ancient people who had all sorts of misguided ideas on how the world works).
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 11:52am PT
|
This month's WIRED magazine's cover story is about "the crusade" against religion. Pretty weird choice of term, but a good read. Dawkins and a few other rational naturalist atheists are profiled and interviewed.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 12:23pm PT
|
How can absolute truth be ancient, misguided? Impossible!
Absolute truth has to be true eternally, past, present, and future.
Always true, free from imperfection; complete; perfect!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 12:28pm PT
|
I think that the issue is to remove the "supernatural," which is a different aspect of the debate that religion vs. science. To some this is an even more controversial issue, as it leaves little room for what is assumed to be "common" parts of human experience; now if only we knew what that was...
I'll read the Wired article at some point to see what their spin is...
|
|
Rick A
climber
Boulder, Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 12:50pm PT
|
Greg and RP-I had not heard of Dawkins until this thread. Thanks for the recomendation. I noticed his recent book, "The God Delusion" is the subject of a long and mildly critical review on the first page of the NY times book review today.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 01:39pm PT
|
remove the "supernatural,"
Yes this is the root of modern science, no soul.
All material, just duality. Dry and lifeless.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!