Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: a red herring?
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 31 of 120 (377648)
01-17-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by limbosis
01-17-2007 7:06 PM


Re: the population dilemma
Ok.
Are you saying that science would be more useful if it offered more than tentative conclusions, theories, and the like?
In your opinion, how could science be improved?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 7:06 PM limbosis has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 32 of 120 (377649)
01-17-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by limbosis
01-17-2007 6:37 PM


Re: the population dilemma
Limbosis, I know you have a lot of responses in this thread, but I'd be very interested in your response to my messages #11, #20, and #25.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 6:37 PM limbosis has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 33 of 120 (377652)
01-17-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by limbosis
01-17-2007 6:37 PM


Re: the population dilemma
I'm wondering why people would go to the bother of thinking out a scientific theory that could be used to justify racism, and then go to the bother of cunningly disseminating it through society when people are perfectly capable of being racist all by themselves.
Surely it seems like a massive waste of time for any evil cabal bent on world domination? Its not like people in the 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th, 14th and indeed 13th and 12th centuries weren't horribly racist without the aid of Darwin and those who thought he'd hit on a really good idea. In fact, if they are aiming to promote racial discord, they are doing spectacularly badly. Why? because the idea that prejudice based on racial difference has only really been widely considered a Bad Idea, at least in the West, since the time of Darwin. How do you explain that? It would appear that these despicable folks aren't really very much to be afraid of - unless the anti-racism campaign is an even more subtle tool that they have fashioned themselves to achieve an even more diabolical end?
Doesn't this kind of conspiracy look like a phenomenal waste of effort to you? To use a phrase that's probably incomprehensibly parochial - isn't this like sending coals to Newcastle?
So enlighten me. Why is this worth someone's time and effort? What are they gaining? Maybe first I should be asking who they are, these "powers that be".
limbosis writes:
If you want to see some real science, look for the ideas that DON'T get widely publicized.
I don't think that you are saying here that all crazy crackpot websites should be heeded. So how do i distinguish the crazy websites from the ones doing good science?
Basically I'm hoping that you will throw caution to the wind and lay your position out pronto.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 6:37 PM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 8:27 PM Tusko has replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 34 of 120 (377659)
01-17-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tusko
01-17-2007 7:37 PM


Re: the population dilemma
I know, it's getting pretty late in London.
I don't think that you are saying here that all crazy crackpot websites should be heeded. So how do i distinguish the crazy websites from the ones doing good science?
I would start with the patent office website for just about any country. I'm sure many of them have a decent search engines. You can use your imagination from there, keeping in mind that some of the better ones would actually be sequestered for "military" purposes. But, there's still plenty out there, particularly in physics.
As for the rest of your most recent post, I think you're getting very close. And, this is much too significant to be handled recklessly. So just bear with me, if you would. I've got other responses to make, as well, if I expect this thread to be taken seriously. I'm already starting to skip whole words in my typing, as it is.
BTW, what is ABE? also, how did you get that particular digital effect on your avatar, if you don't mind me asking? Cheers!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tusko, posted 01-17-2007 7:37 PM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Tusko, posted 01-18-2007 7:59 AM limbosis has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 35 of 120 (377664)
01-17-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by limbosis
01-16-2007 12:58 PM


Re: Oh? Is that the case, eh?
limbosis writes:
No, I'm suggesting that the idea of evolution may have been intended as a means of eventually justifying the feeble, state-sponsored notion that one race is in any way superior to another. Eugenics would be another name for it.
I think you are way out on limb, limbosis
I suspect you intended to draw some YEC out from under the bushes, but instead you have myself (and maybe others) scratching our heads.
Doesn't the OT have prior art on identifying an entire race as wicked and evil (ie much less desirable) and therefore an excellent candidate for eradication, in other words eugenics in action?
limbosis writes:
I blame god for slavery.
Really? I blame privative thinking and tribal ethics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by limbosis, posted 01-16-2007 12:58 PM limbosis has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 36 of 120 (377708)
01-18-2007 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by sidelined
01-16-2007 8:54 AM


sidelined writes: I find this a curious statement. What existing theories were ignored?
Aether?
Spontaneous Generation??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 01-16-2007 8:54 AM sidelined has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 37 of 120 (377713)
01-18-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by nator
01-16-2007 10:34 AM


no
schraf writes: Unless there is a scientific theory to unite and explain why genes appear as they do in species, then those subfields of molecular biology and genetics consist of nothing more than just so many isolated, meaningless data points.
You don't really believe that, do you?
The ToE is that explanation.
It is ONE way to explain it. It is not the ONLY way to explain it, obviously. Look, I don't like the idea of creation, for my own reasons, any more than you do. And, even if though there is no evidence of it that is readily available to us, it remains a possibility. Scientifically speaking, evolution can only go so far as being one possible explanation. That's all you know. You may as well get comfortable with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nator, posted 01-16-2007 10:34 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 01-18-2007 9:30 AM limbosis has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 38 of 120 (377724)
01-18-2007 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by RickJB
01-16-2007 1:24 PM


Now we're getting somewhere!
A theory is a hypothesis that is consistently backed by empirical evidence and that can be used to make predictions.
Yes and no.
Be that as it may, can you make a prediction based on TOEvo that you can back by empirical evidence, which is said to parallel the theory beyond a single change in "species"? Even if you could, it would still be remarkably flimsy.
I can say that the theory itself is geared to avoid any legitimate scrutiny.
Pre-Darwinian theories of evolution
Greek: I'm not sure how that even resembles the 19th century approach.
Medieval: Not much info. What little there is seems to lend support for creation.
Kant: Bright guy, but evidently quite an apologist, so much so that I wonder if his agenda was ever noble.
Linnaeus: Creationist all the way.
E. Darwin: Apparently somewhat of an apologist, as well.
Lamarck: Spoke to the idea that eventually became known as eugenics.
Malthus: Pure evil. Scientific Racism at its lowest. F#@K Malthus!
See, these examples are actually where I'm going with this thread. Be fair and allow me to develop this. Trust me, you will not be disappointed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RickJB, posted 01-16-2007 1:24 PM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RickJB, posted 01-18-2007 3:40 AM limbosis has not replied
 Message 41 by Admin, posted 01-18-2007 9:10 AM limbosis has replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4991 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 39 of 120 (377731)
01-18-2007 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by limbosis
01-18-2007 3:11 AM


Re: Now we're getting somewhere!
Limbosis writes:
Be that as it may, can you make a prediction based on TOEvo that you can back by empirical evidence, which is said to parallel the theory beyond a single change in "species"?
For starters, evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record. Tiktaalik, a creature predicted by evolution, was found AFTER paleontologists went looking for it. They went to Ellesmere Island purposely looking for intermediates between Panderichthys and the first tetrapods. They searched rock strata from what they thought would be the correct era and found such a fossil. Simple.
Limbosis writes:
Even if you could, it would still be remarkably flimsy.
In other words, "even if I'm wrong, I'm still right", yes?
Limbosis writes:
Greek: I'm not sure how that even resembles the 19th century approach.
Medieval: Not much info. What little there is seems to lend support for creation.
Kant: Bright guy, but evidently quite an apologist, so much so that I wonder if his agenda was ever noble.
Linnaeus: Creationist all the way.
E. Darwin: Apparently somewhat of an apologist, as well.
Lamarck: Spoke to the idea that eventually became known as eugenics.
Malthus: Pure evil. Scientific Racism at its lowest. F#@K Malthus!
I dont really care what you think about them. The point is that your initial assertion has been shown to be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by limbosis, posted 01-18-2007 3:11 AM limbosis has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 40 of 120 (377750)
01-18-2007 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by limbosis
01-17-2007 8:27 PM


Re: the population dilemma
I have to go now - jsut wanted to reply to your two questions.
ABE is added by edit - use the edit button on the bottom of your posts if you want to change something, but make a note of what you have changed/added for others to see that its a later addition.
I don't know what digital effect you mean for the avatar. Perhaps you mean the difference between the original and the pixelated quality of the avatar as it is seen by posts? This isn't my doing - its the compression or reduction that the site perfoms to shrink images to an appropriate size.
As for the rest of your post I'm a bit perplexed, to be honest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 8:27 PM limbosis has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 41 of 120 (377758)
01-18-2007 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by limbosis
01-18-2007 3:11 AM


Topic Drift Alert!
Hi Limbosis,
The potential for topic drift is one of the reasons that we usually require a more clear thread title and opening post. You said you wanted to hear from those who were sure evolution has not occurred, but you've only heard from evolutionists, and I'm pretty certain that the discussion that has developed isn't the discussion implied by the opening post.
You now seem to be advancing in piecemeal fashion toward some other topic that you're revealing bit by bit, but EvC Forum doesn't work that way. Please post a new message that can serve as a substitute for the opening post and that properly introduces the topic you really want to discuss, otherwise I'll close this thread, as I indicated I would do a couple days ago back in Message 16.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by limbosis, posted 01-18-2007 3:11 AM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by limbosis, posted 01-18-2007 2:53 PM Admin has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 42 of 120 (377762)
01-18-2007 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by limbosis
01-18-2007 2:16 AM


yes
schraf writes: Unless there is a scientific theory to unite and explain why genes appear as they do in species, then those subfields of molecular biology and genetics consist of nothing more than just so many isolated, meaningless data points.
quote:
You don't really believe that, do you?
Yes, of course.
It is no different in any other scientific field.
For example, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are great, but they do not "stand alone" from Gravitational Theory.
Genetics is the study of genes, heredity, and the relatedness of organisms. Are you telling me that geneticists can discover the relatedness between various organisms over and over again without regard for the ToE?
Population genetics is a subspecialty of molecular genetics, and it is, according to the wiki, "...the study of the allele frequency distribution and change under the influence of the four evolutionary forces: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow."
So, how can you say that molecular genetics "stands alone" from the ToE when one of it's subfields studies the evolutionary mechanisms?
The ToE is that explanation.
quote:
It is ONE way to explain it. It is not the ONLY way to explain it, obviously.
Nobody ever said it was the only way.
So far, however, all of the other ways have been shown to have far less predictive power than the ToE, so they have been rejected.
I mean, we've rejected all of the explanations for why people get infections in favor of the Germ Theory of Disease, haven't we?
We have done the same thing with all the other explanations for the origin of species.
Why is there a problem in your mind with the latter but ont the former?
quote:
Look, I don't like the idea of creation, for my own reasons, any more than you do.
I don't really have any feelings on it at all, actually.
quote:
And, even if though there is no evidence of it that is readily available to us, it remains a possibility.
Sure, but it is an untestable question, so there's no point wondering about it, since there is no way anyone can ever know the answer.
I will also add that while anything is possible, all probabilities are not the equal.
quote:
Scientifically speaking, evolution can only go so far as being one possible explanation. That's all you know. You may as well get comfortable with it.
I certainly am. It's you who seems uncomfortable with not knowing for sure.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman
"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by limbosis, posted 01-18-2007 2:16 AM limbosis has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 43 of 120 (377834)
01-18-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Admin
01-18-2007 9:10 AM


My Position
Fair enough, Percy. My position in this thread has been this:
I believe that the TOEvo was originally supplied within the context of scientific racism. This was done possibly to attract intelligent yet indecisive people toward the apparently edified principles of science, and ultimately into the comfort of justifying eugenic polocies.
As you can imagine, this is a very delicate issue. That's why I avoided referring to the depth of these claims, with the original post. My goal is to arrive at some of these gravely serious considerations, by offering a topic that is, on the surface, sufficiently entailed by these deeper matters.
I also hope to invite discussion from both sides of the forum, because oddly enough, the conclusions I've drawn may actually implicate the religious community as well. In fairness to them, the original post was established in a way that gave them the opportunity to distance themselves from such a stark secular condition.
Right now, I would present the topic of this thread as "If the TOEvo was originally affectated with an underlying, scientifically racist agenda, is there anything that creationists would care to add in either disdain or support for this claim?"
Wherever this leads under the given assumptions is fine by me. I would simply clarify that this is not a debate over the intrinsic merits of the TOEvo. However, I would reasonably expect some remarks made in defense of specific criticisms applied to certain aspects of science in general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Admin, posted 01-18-2007 9:10 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RickJB, posted 01-18-2007 4:41 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2007 5:00 PM limbosis has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 44 of 120 (377836)
01-18-2007 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Wounded King
01-17-2007 7:04 PM


Re: the population dilemma
If your best argument is a specious post hoc ergo propter hoc then you basically don't have an argument.
Is that so?
Then, I suppose it's just another coincidence that Galton and Darwin were actually COUSINS, for christ sake!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Wounded King, posted 01-17-2007 7:04 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by AZPaul3, posted 01-18-2007 3:40 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 01-18-2007 6:54 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 50 by kuresu, posted 01-18-2007 8:30 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 51 by Wounded King, posted 01-19-2007 4:58 AM limbosis has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 45 of 120 (377841)
01-18-2007 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by limbosis
01-18-2007 3:01 PM


Re: the population dilemma
If your best argument is a specious post hoc ergo propter hoc then you basically don't have an argument.
Is that so?
Then, I suppose it's just another coincidence that Galton and Darwin were actually COUSINS, for christ sake!
So, what you're telling us is that since your cousin is a convicted child abuser your name and address should appear in the on-line registry of Pedophiles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by limbosis, posted 01-18-2007 3:01 PM limbosis has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024