Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Come on, Arequipa . . . Why must you people always take things beyond the data. Evolution theory is sound and you can show the evolution of species. BUT . . . you cannot show there was no guidance just because we are too ignorant or unintelligent to see it or understand it and have to resort to euphemisms about "survival instinct," "environmental facilitation of reproduction," "random" mutations, possible radiation, faulty gene copying, "genetic drift," etc. etc. etc. NONE of what we attribute things to can be shown to be unguided. We just do not SEE them as such. Our ignorance is our ignorance and is simply not going away anytime soon . . . even if we identify ALL the causative agents. They just tell us HOW changes occurred . . . not WHY or WHAT instigates them . . . even though you have your pet beliefs about them.
My complaint about Oleg's post was not that it postulated god - input but that it was an incoherent rant. If you trouble to read the posts just previous you will see that evolution does not disprove a divine guiding hand - it just means that there is no evidence for it. We do not SEE the hand of God because there is no evidence for it. As to 'pet theories', I have NO pet theories in the evolution field. I shall leave that to you.
"Friar William of Ockham's razor is not science . . . it is preference. It has frequently been shown to produce the wrong answer."
Occam's razor is not claimed to be science, but a logical rule. It is not just a human preference but is one of a set of mental tools for carving out valid conclusions from a block of unworked data. Rather, it is a mental safety barrier against the misuse of the mental tools in the logic- box, thus preventing intellectual injury.
It is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation to suggest that the rule of parsimony knows what is right and what is wrong; it simply argues that, when a theory best accords with the evidence presented, that is to be preferred over another theory which depends on postulated evidence which is not actually to hand - postulating God- input when there is no evidence for it is a prime example of flouting the principle of parsimony.
Of course, if further evidence comes to hand, then a theory previously not entertained may become feasible, but it cannot logically be considered feasible until that evidence is produced. Your argument is the old one of 'nobody believed powered flight/black holes until they were were proved, but they were true.'
And it was quite right that they were doubted until adequately proven. To do other would mean that we would have to consider all suggestions valid (in fact believable) without any evidence at all.
That would suit those with a theory which has nothing much to support it, (e.g. the hand of god in evolution), but that is again flouting logic - special pleading in that it regards one unsupported theory as compellingly feasible while dismissing or ignoring all the others which they may not like.
This is such basic logic and reason that, in view of your failure to get your bonce round it, I have to wonder what your beliefs have done to an undoubtedy brilliant mind.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-08-2012 at 07:56 PM..
My complaint about Oleg's post was not that it postulated god - input but that it was an incoherent rant. If you trouble to read the posts just previous you will see that evolution does not disprove a divine guiding hand - it just means that there is no evidence for it. We do not SEE the hand of God because there is no evidence for it. As to 'pet theories', I have NO pet theories in the evolution field. I shall leave that to you.
"Friar William of Ockham's razor is not science . . . it is preference. It has frequently been shown to produce the wrong answer."
Occam's razor is not claimed to be science, but a logical rule. It is not just a human preference but is one of a set of mental tools for carving out valid conclusions from a block of unworked data. Rather, it is a mental safety barrier against the misuse of the mental tools in the logic- box, thus preventing intellectual injury.
It is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation to suggest that the rule of parsimony knows what is right and what is wrong; it simply argues that, when a theory best accords with the evidence presented, that is to be preferred over another theory which depends on postulated evidence which is not actually to hand - postulating God- input when there is no evidence for it is a prime example of flouting the principle of parsimony.
This is where you go off the rails, Arequipa . . . you simply do not seem to understand that when I say God guided it . . . I am talking about the very things you call the "natural" processes that are involved. Where do you think these processes come from? What is the organizing principle? Your God is "Nature". . . mine is the original God . . . because I see no need for the artificial name just because ignorant religious autocrats persecuted the original scientists investigating God. I am postulating nothing extra or supervening. I am God (the organizing principle) around which the universe of cells and bacteria, etc. that comprise me exist . . . but I need control none of it personally. Of course, I do intervene when there is pain, disease, etc.
This is where you go off the rails, Arequipa . . . you simply do not seem to understand that when I say God guided it . . . I am talking about the very things you call the "natural" processes that are involved. Where do you think these processes come from? What is the organizing principle? Your God is "Nature". . . mine is the original God . . . because I see no need for the artificial name just because ignorant religious autocrats persecuted the original scientists investigating God. I am postulating nothing extra or supervening. I am God (the organizing principle) around which the universe of cells and bacteria, etc. that comprise me exist . . . but I need control none of it personally. Of course, I do intervene when there is pain, disease, etc.
I am afraid that my disinclination to go over your theory yet again is still in place.
It is off - topic as it has nothing to do with evolution theory.
I do not deny that a god might be behind it. I just say that evolution theory is amply supported by evidence and an all in one go creation is not. That is the topic and 'who made everything, then?' is not.
There are plenty of opportunities to discuss cosmic origins elsewhere.
I am afraid that my disinclination to go over your theory yet again is still in place.
It is off - topic as it has nothing to do with evolution theory.
I do not deny that a god might be behind it. I just say that evolution theory is amply supported by evidence and an all in one go creation is not. That is the topic and 'who made everything, then?' is not.
There are plenty of opportunities to discuss cosmic origins elsewhere.
Just defending my views from personal attacks of ignorance or something wrong with my "bonce" not getting around whatever despite my brilliance. Such attacks are unwarranted from my critics who are themselves guilty of "ignorance about what they are ignorant about."
This is where you go off the rails, Arequipa . . . you simply do not seem to understand that when I say God guided it . . . I am talking about the very things you call the "natural" processes that are involved. Where do you think these processes come from? What is the organizing principle? Your God is "Nature". . . mine is the original God . . . because I see no need for the artificial name just because ignorant religious autocrats persecuted the original scientists investigating God. I am postulating nothing extra or supervening. I am God (the organizing principle) around which the universe of cells and bacteria, etc. that comprise me exist . . . but I need control none of it personally. Of course, I do intervene when there is pain, disease, etc.
The natural processes occur because of natural laws. And natural laws may have arisen spontaneously with our universe.
The natural processes occur because of natural laws. And natural laws may have arisen spontaneously with our universe.
This is a non-theist position of course.
Yes . . . I am familiar with this euphemistic organizing principle . . . otherwise known as the emergent "self-organizing" principle. That you credit such euphemisms (non-explanations) as the basis for your worldview says volumes about the depth of your philosophical understanding of the issues.
Just defending my views from personal attacks of ignorance or something wrong with my "bonce" not getting around whatever despite my brilliance. Such attacks are unwarranted from my critics who are themselves guilty of "ignorance about what they are ignorant about."
I believe that I showed quite clearly that you either failed to understand or somehow chose to misrepresent the very simple basic purpose and operation of Occam's razor. If you choose to take that as a personal attack, I regret it. I'm trying to make you see sense, not denigrate you.
As you denigrate the dreamer, here
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Yes . . . I am familiar with this euphemistic organizing principle . . . otherwise known as the emergent "self-organizing" principle. That you credit such euphemisms (non-explanations) as the basis for your worldview says volumes about the depth of your philosophical understanding of the issues.
When he mentions the rational evidence - based default. You attack him with you 'non- explanation' nonsense and insult his intelligence, and all of ours for that matter.
"The most robust and unambiguous examples[1] of self-organizing systems are from the physics of non-equilibrium processes. Self-organization is also relevant in chemistry, where it has often been taken as being synonymous with self-assembly" (Wiki)
Why you choose to sneer at this, I cannot understand as there is evidence that it does occur and is a obviously feasible mechanism for abiogenesis and the 'evilution' of the cosmos, too. Well, as you often appear to be theist with evident creationist leanings, perhaps I can understand why you sneer it.
And we seem to drifting off biological evolution let alone human evolution.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-09-2012 at 03:01 AM..
Ok....fact is that the evidence is overwhelmingly aimed at assessing the fossil and current DNA indications as evidence of the course of evolution in the past...
"People Today
Are we genetically different from our Homo sapiens ancestors who lived 10-20,000 years ago? The answer is almost certainly yes. In fact, it is very likely that the rate of evolution for our species has continuously accelerated since the end of the last ice age, roughly 10,000 years ago. This is mostly due to the fact that our human population has explosively grown and moved into new kinds of environments, including cities, where we have been subject to new natural selection pressures. For instance, our larger and denser populations have made it far easier for contagious diseases, such as tuberculosis, small pox, the plague, and influenza to rapidly spread through communities and wreak havoc. This has exerted strong selection for individuals who were fortunate to have immune systems that allowed them to survive. There also has been a marked change in diet for most people since the end of the last ice age. It is now less varied and predominantly vegetarian around the globe with a heavy dependence on foods made from cereal grains. It is likely that the human species has been able to adapt to these and other new environmental pressures because it has acquired a steadily greater genetic diversity. A larger population naturally has more mutations adding variation to its gene pool simply because there are more people. This happens even if the mutation rate per person remains the same. However, the mutation rate may have actually increased because we have been exposed to new kinds of man-made environmental pollution that can cause additional mutations.
It is not clear what all of the consequences of the environmental and behavioral changes for humans have been. However, it does appear that the average human body size has become somewhat shorter over the last 10,000 years, and we have acquired widespread immunity to the more severe effects of some diseases such as measles and influenza."
It is a lot harder to find articles on curren/ongoing genetic mutations and adaptations in humans that are of the simpler kind that you and I would find it easier to understand. but I did find this helpful site.
"...But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.
But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis
One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.
This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average."
This may be considered minor. It is certainly not humans suddenly growing handy wings or a third arm to use for coffee (or something) while operating the laptop. It does give you what you want - evidence of genetic beneficial change which improves human chances of survival. I don't doubt there are others and I recall seeing one or two. It is fair to point out that, while these may be a small micro-evolutionary increment which will change our species over 10,00 years and even more in 100,000, in these days of vehicle airbags and kevlar body - armour, the development of stronger, denser bones might not give such an evolutionary advantage as in a tribe of mountain - dwelling hunters, for instance.
Thank you very much I really appreciate all your efforts on the topic , I learned new information that I did't know about it before .
Now ...
If someone ask me to write a summary of the topic in 5 or 6 sentence (with a sense of humor ) it would be something like this :
From millions of rare mutations that mostly don't give an advantage & among millions of species we were lucky time after time mutations after another to have new traits from mutations that gives us (out of luck again) the exact advantage we need despite that we can not choose it because it is a random process that happen for known reasons which is not random in the sense of occurring without any reasons & the best example of genetic mutation of a human which can be seen to increase the information in the geno & change the body shape naturally in a world population of 7 billion people is a family with a strong bones .
Is that it ?
Last edited by squall-lionheart; 04-09-2012 at 05:55 AM..
Come on, Arequipa . . . Why must you people always take things beyond the data. Evolution theory is sound and you can show the evolution of species. BUT . . . you cannot show there was no guidance
Nor can we show that it wasn't all caused by invisible underwear gnomes. That's why "but it's not impossible" is a poor standard of proof, as are your arguments from ignorance about a magical universal god field which created itself and everything we know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Such attacks are unwarranted from my critics who are themselves guilty of "ignorance about what they are ignorant about."
) it would be something like this :
