Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

The practical demands of life.

Which is one reason for being here even if you think you already know-it-all.

Opps that should have read "...is that it is only a mix...". The long term evolutionarily important part is the completely new stuff introduced by mutations etc. In the short term 10's, maybe 100's, of generations I would suggest that you're right. In the longer term the added genetic variance is important.(Though when I think of it a bit I might well be blowing smoke with that statement)This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-20-2004 06:00 PM

Well, then, you've answered your own question, haven't you? Why take evolution on authority? Because you can't be bothered to accept it on any other basis. Though you seem to have more than enough time to fuck around on internet discussion forums.

Yeah, I noticed that about Mike.Para, can you think of anything else? My brain is not functioning too well right now and I don't know enough science. You can probably come up with something.

Good point, crashfrog. I guess I do waste a lot of time. I keep telling myself that this is a pleasant way to learn things.Your tone denotes anger. Are you angry with me, Crashfrog?

I don't think that was called for at all.Where did that come from? Robin is using her/his time here to learn things and doing a better job than mose. I'd say it was less fucking around than most of us are doing.In fact, that answer "there isn't time" is a very true and meaningful one.We all have limited resources. We therefore, to a very great extent do a lot of accepting on authority.The discussion has included a bit of how you decide when to do that, when not to and how you can make the descision as to which authority.Give that the "why" has been thrashed out a fair bit and Robin has underlined it succinctly perhaps we can focuss more on the how to you decide question.

I'm a he.

Better than examining the evidence for yourself? Why on Earth would that be the case?You're a liar, Robin. You're not interested in learning, because if you were, you wouldn't have dismissed the possibility of finding out about the evidence as impossible due to your limited time. If it was learning you were interested in, you'd be avaling yourself of the resources of talkorigins.org, or wikipedia, or other information, instead of chatting over here about how your "limited time" forces you to take the theory on faith, from the mouths of the scientific priesthood.I'm not interested in why you acccept the theory; for all I care you accept it because your invisible alien friends told you to do so. That wouldn't, and doesn't, change the fact that the theory of evolution is supported by more than enough evidence to convince anyone who looks. I'm frustrated. I always get frustrated by people who lie to my face.

Is he? Then what's the point of this thread, exactly? Anyone who does that is asking to be bit in the ass when it turns out they misunderstood the authorities, or that the authorities turned out not to be so authortiative.I acccept based on the evidence, and I know the evidence as it is transmitted to me is valid because scientific publishing is set up that way. I don't accept conclusions on authority, and neither should anyone else.

Yes you do, crash:

quote:

---

... I know the evidence as it is transmitted to me is valid because scientific publishing is set up that way.

---

Indeed. Thus, you've accepted on the authority of scientific publishing.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I think you have a very simplified picture of what actually goes on.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-20-2004 10:06 PM

Only because the evidence is quite conclusive that the information gets from the scientists to me intact.Nice try, though.

It wasn't a "try".

quote:

---

Only because the evidence is quite conclusive that the information gets from the scientists to me intact.

---

I agree, but even though it's "only because..." it is still acceptance on authority.It seems to me that the issue here is the reliability of the authority we accept, not whether or not we are accepting authority. In the case of scientific discoveries / experiments / studies you and I both accept the authority of verifiable, peer-reviewed sources.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

No, it's acceptance on evidence. I mean, I guess you could consider evidence to be some kind of authority, but that's not really what is meant by "authority" in this context.