|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: morality, charity according to evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Well since it is you we are trying to demostrate it to what we need is your definition of complex. It is arguably more complex because the argument is about this very issue of complexity. There has been more than one occassion where people have gone into in depth demonstrations of how coomplexity or information may arise only for their oponent to say , 'oh, that isn't what I mean by complexity. Since you first made the assertion that everything is becoming more complex why has this only suddenly ocurred to you that actually defining complexity might be an issue? What I am thinking of specifically is drastic reductions in the size of the genome and the loss of genes which would be required for the organism to exist in isolation from a host. TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
There are actually quite a few scientists here and many who have spouses for scientists. The few scientists here are certainly welcome to express all the knowledge they have accrued over the years. I don't, however, think that having a spouse in any designated field would make either one of us more or less qualified. For instance, my wife is an IT, but I'm computer illiterate in comparison to her. Unless of course their spouse was actively engaged in field as well.
Others of us (like me, an engineer) certainly have a good science background. I'm an engineer as well but I don't think that automatically places us in a scientific bracket. I mean, obviously there is a high level of physics involved but we couldn't split an atom if we were a hydrolectric engineer. I was working as a research assistant a few months ago in hopes of getting hired on full time. We recieved a grant to create an implantable subcutaneous glucose sensor in hopes that it would lead us towards an artificial pancreas to counter the increasing number of diabetics. Aside from that nominal experience, all the applicable knowledge gained, was gained like most everyone else. Read, read, read. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5750 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
Maybe you can engage us with something more than quote mines. Those are eminent evolutionists, eh? Did you actually read what they said?
quote: Yep, he sure sounds like one.
quote: So does he.
quote: Including this is just plain dishonest. If you know anything about what you're talking about, you'd know that Gould (the only name I recognised on this list) is talking about gradual evolution vs punctuated equilibrium. The first quote is from this paper:
quote: I've gotta go to class, ciao. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It's important when the quote indicates a lack of "logically coherent evidence." We have gained gobs of logically coherent evidence since 1929 that has supported and formed evolutionary theory. We don't rely on Darwin's data to support evolution. ToE has changed very little since Darwin. Evidence was scant or non-existent then and its the same today. Again, instead of anyone presenting actual evidence of such a transition, instead, we're giving some abstract theorum describing why it should be taking place. So whether it was in 1929 or 1999 makes no difference.
Quotes taken out-of-context so that they seem to say something they weren't intended to say are indeed deceptive. Your argument that they "say what they say" is specious. What is specious about it? If a prominent creationist wrote a paper including his or her reasons for believing in the creation account, but within the text there was a whole paragraph devoted to paradoxes and anamoles within the theory, then why is that wrong for an evolutionist to capitalize on that which the creationist cannot logically reconcile? If Dembski said something like: "Creationism is lacking any qualities that offer the kind of empirical evidence required by science, however, with the introduction of [this or that] method, we hope to find a conclusive, ground-breaking theorum. As it stands now, there is a sickly pall looming over the normative creation account" What would be wrong, or what would be taking out of context his lack of evidence? What would be wrong with capitalizing on that? Stephen Jay Gould is probably the worst offender to act as a detriment to his own theory by the very words he spoke. We all know how he felt about evolution and that he believed in it wholeheartedly. No one contends with that. He believed in it up until his death as many do. But that doesn't detract from the fact that he recognized certain conundrums within the theory and spoke about such findings. Quoting those findings is NOT deceitful. What is deceitful is to know of better model and suppress the evidence anyway simply because it doesn't satisfy some philosophical predisposition. That is an agrecious and insufferable deceit. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
...Dembski said something like: "Creationism is lacking any qualities that offer the kind of empirical evidence required by science, I knew it!! Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
This is for NJ and his various interlocutors. Discussion of the various quotes NJ provided is not a suitable topic for this thread. Can we make some attempt to get back to addressing the topic at hand?
TTFN, AW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Maybe you can engage us with something more than quote mines. I have been engaged in extensive debates and have taken on the task of debating several people since the moment I arrived. To say otherwise isn't truthful. So, your clever quip doesn't meet the criteria that I only quote mine.
Including this is just plain dishonest. If you know anything about what you're talking about, you'd know that Gould (the only name I recognised on this list) is talking about gradual evolution vs punctuated equilibrium. This whole time I've been leading everyone into making their own self-refuting, contradictory statements. On the one hand, certain individuals tell me that there is much evidence of transitional forms, yet haven't presented an iota of such. The best they can do is parrot TalkOrigins '29 evidences of macroevolution', which is leaving so much more up to the imagination as opposed to actual evidence. Then in the next instance, they find themselves in agreement with punctuated equilibria. The two are not homologous, as Gould illustrates in the paper you provided. In fact, Gould basically demonizes neo-Darwinians, however courteously he does it, he still says it. Gould, is extremely articulate and leaves no doubt that he agrees with someone such as myself, that evidence of transitions is virtually non-existent. That's where the quote comes in to play. If you disagree, then you are disagreeing with Gould as much as you are with me. And yet, everyone here is telling me otherwise. I then direct my focus onto Punc Eq to show that the two are incompatible with one another. This is where Gould and myself are not in agreement. And if you read the full paper on punctuated equilibrium written by Gould and Eldridge, and sift through the verbal detritus, he basically says that punk eek offers no proof and actually cannot offer proof. In my best estimation, punk eek was developed as a way to keep evolution without any actual evidence. Beautiful. That's fine. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't believe in a stepwise, gradualistic evolution and also believe in punctuated equilibrium because they are odds with one another. You can accuse me of quote mining, as if I haven't presented anything beyond that and you can accuse those statements, taken straight from the source, spoken eloquently and clearly, and say that I've distorted it, but your full version of Gould just solidifies the case against gradualism all the more. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
The two are not homologous, as Gould illustrates in the paper you provided. I don't think this means what you think it means, perhaps compatible would be a better term rather than homologous.
as if I haven't presented anything beyond that Which is pretty much the case in terms of anyhting resembling science or a coherent chain of thought. TTFN, WK Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
d**m it people, can we get back to my OP already. Take this "evolution has direction" and "Gould" crap to the Evo Simplified or start a new thread (NJ).
How about trying to respond to the altruistic bacteria?Or how about refuting any example we've shown you (NJ) as to why moralism can fit into evolution? And I think you're getting pretty close to playing a shell game by saying that all our examples are imaginary and weak, and by not providing examples yourself of how moralism does or can not fit into evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
d**m it people, can we get back to my OP already. Agreed. A quick scan through this thread has led me to believe that the topic has been all over the place and has now become a generic evolution thread. The thread needs a timeout whilst its participants consider the topic. If, after it reopens, morality and charity are still not the primary focus of discussion suspensions might be required. The current offtopic subthreads can either be taken to another thread or a new topic can be proposed. Comments to the apt thread in my sig. Thanks. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Force a rescan of AdminModulous's sig to get correct text size. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Off topic posts about the evidence (or lack thereof) for evolution in general will result in temporary suspensions (after a short grace period to allow you to read this message and edit if necessary).
For those who haven't even looked at the OP, it can be summed up with:
In the Biological evolution forum, the topic "intended mutations" ended up into a partial debate about how morality and charity fit in with the evolutionary model.
Please stick with continuing the debate about how morality and charity fit (or don't fit) into the evolutionary model. Thank you for your consideration. Comments etc, to the normal place (link in my sig) New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting.... |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I haven't actually read every post here because of the topic drift. So I might be being redundant.
Isn't survival what evolution is all about? You know, surviving so that you can reproduce and have offspring. Working together to survive increases your reproductive success because you live longer and have more oppurtunities to procreate. Just becasue you cannot see how this is so does not mean that this is not so. Indeed - a genetic influence that leads to either kin selection or even just general altruism can spread quite easily. If you have that gene, you will be penalized for it initially (assuming that everyone around you is selfish) since you will be exploited by your nasty neighbours. However, if you do manage to reproduce, your offspring may have inheretid the altruism gene. Now we see can how a family might build up which helps each other out doing better (propagating more of the same genes) than those that are indifferent to one another (or hostile). However, it isn't just genes that can cause altruism, ideas can. A stirring speech can rally soldiers, a concept of martyrdom can inspire someone to kill themselves (for obvious reasons a gene of this type might not spread so easily). Memes are interesting (though many still reject them as replicating entities with differential reproductive success) and can explain less obvious points of culture such as charity, morality, music and jokes etc. All these things have probably have a genetic inspiration, but have been refined and altered in meme form. I personally think this is another way of discussing nature versus nurture. Actually it is genes vs memes. Memes are more powerful for specific effects, but genes achieve a statistical influence that cannot be easily ignored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I've never heard of "memes". Could you clarify what they are, exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Susan Blackmoore is one of those who have picked up the 'meme' concept and run with it. Richard Dawkins coined the term but has not really gone anywhere with it.
Blackmoore defines a meme as...
information copied from person to person by imitation. Dawkins defined it more extensively thus...
We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. ”Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ”gene’. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. ... Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
so it's sort of like non-genetic inheritance? wierd, though it makes sense, but I'm still not sure how it fits into ToE. That's for another thread, though.
abe:an evolutionary replicator solely for imitating organisms and it affects the genes that are passed down, because one must have an "imitating gene", and good behaviours imitated (good in terms of reproductive fitness, I suppose) help keep the "good" genes in the population. this would help to explain not only human society, but most societal organisms, I would say. Still way to wierd, and I need to dig further into it, but a very interesting concept. Edited by kuresu, : No reason given. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024