Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9014 total)
49 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1 (2 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 881,962 Year: 13,710/23,288 Month: 228/412 Week: 15/40 Day: 0/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Mud Theory (SocialEvolution and lyx2no only)
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 3 of 29 (547559)
02-20-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SocialEvolution
02-19-2010 5:10 PM


May I Call You "SE"?
Welcome to EvC, SocialEvolution

The first thing I want to look at is the idea that life came about by accident because of some perfect combination of elements or basically that we came from mud. Is this part of the Theory of Evolution or is this a separate belief that most evolutionists hold? Is this asserted as a fact or a belief or a scientific theory?

It is none of the above. You’ve gotten involved with a gang of straw men. Firstly, there is a real difference between life coming about by accident and life not coming about by purpose. It is often phrased as life coming about by chance. This last, at least, does not outright prejudice the argument; but still, chemicals do not mix by chance. They combine in known, fixed ways. Some of those ways are auto-catalyzing; meaning, once one of these molecules form they promote more copies of themselves to form. If a semi-hardy, imperfectly self-replicating molecule comes into existence in a reliably stable environment, given plentiful time and raw materials, the chemistry is a very long way down the road to biology. That is the basics of abiogenesis.

Secondly, that life came into existence is a fact as well as anything can be described a fact. There are many scientific hypothesis regarding abiogenesis. The genesis may have been in mud, it may have been in tidal pools, it may have been in thermal vents, the last being a good bet, but it isn’t yet known, and may never be.

Thirdly, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the ToE, which merely states that the type of life we see before us will produce slightly differing progeny and the forms most able to replicate within their environments will come to dominate. And as environments are near infinitely variable there are millions of sundry niches for variable forms of life to fill.

The reason I ask is that I haven't seen any evidence for it yet many people I run into act as though it is the proven beyond a doubt.

If you haven’t seen any evidence for it it is because you haven’t looked. The evidence is plentiful that it can happen and that it has happened. Here’s a little bit of an eye opener: right now, before I start supplying evidence for a naturalistic genesis, get an index card and write down all the positive evidence you have that life was intentional. It’s not likely that you’ll need the back of the index card. Folks only think they have a lot of evidence for an intentional creation because they’re carrying it all within their heads. (Remember, of course, that baseless attack of the ToE isn’t evidence for creation. Especially since ToE has nothing to do with genesis.)

Evidence of animals evolving in response to the environment and mutations and all that is great but it doesn't address the initial cause that brought us about in the first place.

It certainly does not.

I see it as entirely plausible that humans could create life. We may not have the technology currently, but I think it is logical to assume that it is a real possibility in the future.

This is a reasonable assumption.

And if we did create a life form, the smartest thing to do would be to design it so that it evolves and adapts to a changing environment.

Designing life not to evolve would be the challenge. Evolution isn’t due to good mechanic but to poor mechanics. The machinery makes errors. Those errors are usually insignificant, often deleterious and occasionally beneficial. These beneficial errors improve the relative ability of the molecule or, later on, organism, to replicate. As they use up the limited resources they crowd out the lesser able. That is the standard by which one judges “beneficial”.

So it seems entirely plausible that another intelligent species like us could have created us.

I’d think to properly call oneself skeptical one would need more then ”we can’t absolutely rule it out” as cause to claim “it seems entirely plausible that…” That we may some day be able to create life does not imply that we were thus created. We would need something to actually point in that direction. Currently there is nothing. There is however lots of evidence pointing to the naturalistic hypotheses being possible. Here is a wee Video (series).

We can see all of the individual elements of this video happening in the real world, but not of yet all together in a sustained fashion. The bigger point is that none of it needs our intervention to go. If the reagents are together they do it themselves. I love the music.

So this scenario, to me, seems just as plausible as the idea that we came from mud.

There is considerably more evidence for mud then for other intelligent species. That alone should tilt the scales toward mud theory.

Many people seem convinced that we came from mud and that nothing else is possible.

Those would be called delusional people. We shouldn’t worry too much about what they think. If your statement is hyperbole for “Many people seem convinced that we came from naturalistic causes and that nothing else is remotely likely”; well, now they’ve got the the weight of evidence on their side; i.e., the existence of nature.

If there is no evidence for either, people could still come up with why they think one is more likely than the other but I don't understand why the idea of us being created by another species is basically ruled out from the beginning. Is there some evidence for the mud theory that I am missing?

Yes: mud.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-19-2010 5:10 PM SocialEvolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-22-2010 1:10 AM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 7 of 29 (547767)
02-22-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by SocialEvolution
02-22-2010 1:10 AM


From the Top
What about you?

Seeking the bigger picture, epistemology is independent of what I think. (Though I hope what I think is not independent of epistemology.) For science to work at all it must work within the stricture of epistemology. Consequently, naturalism is a doctrine of science. It is a statement that science is unable to deal with non-causal phenomena. It does not rule out non-causal phenomena as impossibilities so much as recognize that they can not be reliably studied; i.e., to discover the cause it must be related to the effect; to predict the effect it must be related to the cause. The volition of an übermencsh is not predictable and, therefore, cannot be useful in the advancement of scientific, basal understanding.

Returning to the not-ruled-out rule, because of another assumption of science, the principle of parsimony, making an exception to naturalism is very difficult to do. Parsimony demands that explanations be gained with the fewest assumptions. Unfortunately for us, it is not a mere assumption that people are not only easy to fool but often willing participants. This means that when confronted with an observation of the feeding of five thousand with five loaves and two fishes we’re forced to the conclusion that our ignorance is the limit of our explanation: we have no experience to enable us to disentangle the will of the gods from a slyboots with a food replicator in the guise of a wickerwork basket.

Naturalistic abiogenesis is a paradigm of the biological sciences which too limits conclusions to the observable, repeatable, and inferable. And so far as has been demonstrated the abolition of übermen with übertech , yet alone magic, has not resulted in a cognitive choke point.

Do you think that nothing else is even remotely likely or do you think that the mud theory is just more likely? For nothing else to be even remotely likely, it would take a lot of evidence that the mud theory actually occurred.

Happily substituting “Mud Hypothesis” for “Mud Theory*”, “naturalistic abiogenesis” or “abiogenesis” now that I see you’re not of a mind to play semantic games, we have to recognize that the scope of MH is so great as leave little else. Because MH goes back to the genesis of life itself it would have to include intentional and unintentional panspermia along with an earthly genesis, where the former are currently violations of parsimony.

To not be included in MH we would have to have a violation of physics or chemistry. Circumstances such as particles accelerating not because they have forces acting upon them but because it has been willed. But in the millions upon millions upon millions of observations of life never has a violation the rules of physics or chemistry been noted.

It seems to me that MH is sufficient. To invoke hyperMH requires very much evidence indeed.

It seems like an important distinction since you mention that ToE has nothing to do with abiogenesis and if abiogenesis was about how modern humans could have originated from inanimate matter then it would have to involve ToE to complete the link. So do I have that right?

Yes, you have that right.

"Mud theory" is obviously not a very accurate label. Is there an actual term for "the theory that modern humans originated from inanimate matter without intelligent intervention"? I just call it the mud theory because I figure people will know what I mean but if there's an actual term for this, let me know.

I’m fine with MH so long as it’s an agreed upon short hand between us. I like cooperation towards understanding. Saves time. Is there a word for the whole kit 'n kaboodle, Mud-to-Man pathway? I doubt it. Shall we adopt MtM?

From what I've seen on abiogenesis so far, I see some evidence that it MAY have been possible for life to have arisen spontaneously or for the materials of life to have arisen spontaneously on earth. It is interesting stuff, no doubt, but that is not evidence that we did in fact originate in that way. Evidence for the possibility and evidence for the actual occurrence are two different things. Is there any evidence that we did in fact originate in that way?

Tentitvity is another principle of science. That does not however give as much leeway as you see to be willing to take. Not all scenarios are equally likely. I think we have enough knowledge to safely say that life didn’t need to be imported from other worlds, but other world importation is not as unlikely as importation from other planes of existence.

*Because you’re not the only one who needs be considered in the semantic games. The term “theory” has become of thorn.

Edited by lyx2no, : Minor grammatical error.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-22-2010 1:10 AM SocialEvolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-22-2010 10:39 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply
 Message 14 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-23-2010 12:02 AM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 16 of 29 (547875)
02-23-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by SocialEvolution
02-23-2010 12:30 AM


Shipping Channels*
But parsimony is not an arbiter of truth.

Agreed, no methodology or doctrine or principle can be an arbiter of truth but are merely buoys marking the reef of wishful thinking. And overly cautious buoy setters can place the buoys farther from the reef then need be, or overly parsimonious setters can place them too far apart, warding sailors away from a navigable breach. Nor can we be certain a setter didn’t simply misread a chart.

Furthermore, the buoys are not set to determine our destination, but to help us get there safely. And the destination of the good ship Science is not truth. It is the best port we can arrive at with the rigging we have.

But more often then not the setting of the buoys has no part in a floundering. Many an inexperienced sailor regard buoys not in accord with the hazards of the sea but to the design of their vessel. The buoys do not apply due to the shallowness of their draught while failing to recognize that the craft is entirely unsuitable for the deeps. Yet when the weekend comes they don the skipper’s cap and imagine the bow rider commands the same respect as a barque. (If you’ve not had the pleasure let me recommend to you Buzsaw in his skiff, ICANT in his fan boat, Peg in her hovercraft and Smooth Operator without a paddle.)

It is not just the number of assumptions that determine whether one thing is more likely than another. It matters how much of a stretch the assumption is.

This is not without its downsides though and so we must be careful when we do this.

This method of comparison can lead one to be biased towards theories that appear to have more things that can be observed and repeated (especially in strict laboratory conditions). This is called scientistic prejudice.

… the point here is that there are factors which determine the weight that this kind of comparison should get and ignoring those factors will lead to scientistic prejudice.

It doesn't mean it's of no use but it means that it's of less value.

So in comparing origination theories, I think we should keep these things in mind.

You’re tacking. You’ve got somewhere to go sailing against the wind. Permission to come aboard, Cap’n.

OK, I think I’ve run this metaphor aground.

As unbelievable as it may sound, I actually do not know what our origin is and do not pretend to.

Regardless, I get the sense that you’re trying to make room in the scientific paradigm to fit a pet theory, and am dying to know what cryptobiological treat you wait to unfurl — dang! another noughtical gnostic.

*Please indulge me. As an evil robot clown I get little opportunity to hone my metaphorical skills.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-23-2010 12:30 AM SocialEvolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-24-2010 1:28 AM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 18 of 29 (547988)
02-24-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by SocialEvolution
02-24-2010 1:28 AM


To the Bottom
No, no hidden pet theory for this, I'm afraid. Give me some time though and maybe I'll come up with something

Dang! I was hoping I could stab it up or cap it in the hat.

But let's be clear here. I am talking about the likelihood of the theory being true rather than establishing what should be researched next. Those are very different things. The argument that far more weight should be given to MtM for research could perhaps be won.

That’s good, because I wouldn’t know where to start.

The key thing to establish here is how we compare theories and how much weight we give to each. [snip] …the MtM theory is only slightly more likely than the alien theory if it is more likely at all. This is because we are only talking in possibilities here. The most we can say about MtM is that it may be a possibility. That's a lot different than being overwhelmingly more likely than any other theory we have come up with or will ever come up with. It is not overwhelmingly more likely, it is only a possibility at best at this point in time.

Do you believe that it is possible to discover knowledge of past events? If there is as trail of muddy boot prints leading across my garden, a muddy boot print on my shattered back door; more muddy boot prints leading across my living room to an empty TV stand; similar prints leading again to the back door, through the garden and over the back fence into the alley; am I able to deduce any thing from this? Could we speculate a teenage punk a more likely culprit then an aging King of Rock n’ Roll? Is it safe to assume a culprit?

If so we can surely sort out MtM and LGM (Little Green Men). We have more conclusive evidence of MtM then of my TV having been stolen. It is more likely my father conspired in a cover-up with my mum to hide their having played ball in the house then the MtM be seriously in error.

Where in the narrative of MtM do you think the weakness lies? The weakness in the LGM lies squarely in having absolutely no evidence of any kind for it. It’s barely a possibility. So to equate the two is beyond my comprehension. You’re going to have to convince me you’re not just pulling my leg before I could even contemplate a reasoned response. Please demonstrate your contention that “the MtM theory is only slightly more likely than the alien theory if it is more likely at all.” is anywhere close to justifiable.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-24-2010 1:28 AM SocialEvolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-24-2010 10:33 PM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 20 of 29 (548021)
02-24-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by SocialEvolution
02-24-2010 10:33 PM


Re: To the Bottom
So you've got nothing?


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-24-2010 10:33 PM SocialEvolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-25-2010 11:24 AM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 22 of 29 (548111)
02-25-2010 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by SocialEvolution
02-25-2010 11:24 AM


Onus
The assertion I made is that LGM is a possibility. This is not unsupported.

No, the assertion you made was:

quote:
…the MtM theory is only slightly more likely than the alien theory if it is more likely at all.

And that is not supported. It is support for this that I am asking.

This is derived from making logical considerations about facts that we have. The fact is that we exist. The logical consideration about that fact is that it may be possible that others exist. That is plenty to establish this as a logical possibility. Challenging the assertion that will not get you anywhere here.

I do not challenge that LGM is a possibility. But it is not a logical one.

That Henry VIII exists is not enough to establish the possibility that he jumped rope from Ipswich to Braintree. His having traveled from Ipswich to Braintree is not enough to establish the possibility that he jumped rope from Ipswich to Braintree. That Kings of England are so frequently the object of gossip eliminates the possibility that Henry VIII jumped rope from Ipswich to Braintree.

There are two reason one might claim that LGM is a logical possibility. The first is because it is a possibility that we are all brains in jars. That we cannot know the nature of reality with absolute certainly is undeniable. If this is the basis of your argument I must agree. I must also agree to any hypothesis no matter how bizarre it may seem to me because I have no certain way to judge what is and is not bizarre to reality.

The second is because we know nothing about what LGM wouldn’t do. In other word: because of a total lack of evidence about LGM. We do not have a total lack of evidence for chemistry. We do not have a total lack of evidence for people being chemistry writ large. We do not have a total lack of evidence for pathways from chemistry to chemistry writ large. A hand (M2) full of mud (M1) is far and away more evidence for MtM than are syllogisms for LGM.

You cannot deny that LGM is a logical possibility and that is all that I claim. Ask for whatever evidence you want but unless you are challenging the assertion that LGM is a logical possibility, it does nothing for your argument.

Wiki: Straw man: an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

The question is what evidence do you have that makes MtM more likely than LGM? [snip] So let's look specifically at what facts and accompanying logical considerations you have that makes MtM more likely than LGM. You should have something in order to support the bold assertion that MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM. Show me. My assertion has already been established, yours has not.

Wiki: The burden of proof is often asymmetrical, and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes an ontologically positive claim, or a claim that greatly departs from conventional knowledge.

I’m hiding behind the skirts of philosophy.

If you don't have anything or come up with something minimal, then you cannot say that MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM. Admit this and I promise I will leave you an out and attack my own theory before the end of this thread.

I can watch chemicals self-replicate. I can watch self-replicating molecules compete for diminishing resources. I can watch the percentage of some self-replicating molecules increase at the the expense of others. I can observe that DNA is a self-replicating molecule. I can observe that DNA contains sub units named alleles. I can watch genes replicate. I can watch genes mutate forming alleles. I can watch alleles being sorted. I can arrange fossils in chronological order. I can recognize morphological kinship. I can construct consistent trees of nested hierarchies through multiple, unrelated pathways. I can reasonably claim MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM.

By the bye, if you’ve been reading a few of the other threads over the course of the last week you’ll see that there are half a dozen that seem to be hand feeding me enough evidence for MtM to bury this thread five times over.

Until such time that you have come up with… some… any… demonstrable cause to assume LGM you’ve got nothing.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-25-2010 11:24 AM SocialEvolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-26-2010 11:45 AM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 24 of 29 (548275)
02-26-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by SocialEvolution
02-26-2010 11:45 AM


Bona Fides
My main drive throughout this thread has been the contention that confidence in MtM is so exageratted as to become a belief. That is the OP. That is the focus. The assertion that I must challenge in order to establish that is that "MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM". If little evidence can be shown for that and yet people still have extreme confidence in it, then my perception will have shown to be accurate. It's very simple. I sit back and watch as evidence is not provided, therefore verifying my perception and so far, my perception is shown to be accurate. BUT, you have in this last post attempted to show evidence for that assertion! Have my dreams come true? Well, not exactly...

I’ll need verification that you are either the Pope or a divinely installed monarch before I can accept the proposition that a contention stands as Truth® until such time as the contendor allows for evidence to the contrary. So far the best you’ve managed to do is gain my admiration for the suppleness of your wrist as demonstrated by your supreme hand waving (waiving?).

lyx writes:

I can watch chemicals self-replicate.

SE writes:

Chemicals can also self replicate under the LGM theory so that is not evidence over LGM.

It is not enough that an observation not be contradictory to a model for it to be evidence for the model. The MtM model requires that there be self-replicating chemistry. This observation establishes that chemistry doesn’t required intervention to self-replicate. Certain LGM models may require SRC. But you are not putting forth a certain model. You need to supply positive, demonstrable evidence for alien intervention and the method of intervention before you have anything. Until then, self-replicating chemistry supports MtM and not LGM. Unless you’re also going to suggest self-replicating chemistry supports the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) model.

Additionally, just because an organism is not exactly the same from generation to generation does not mean that we evovle from species to species. My car has changed over the years due to the weather and rogue shopping carts on a mission to destroy my car but nevertheless it is still a Ford Taurus and it will die a Ford Taurus.

And your Ford Taurus has produced how many off spring? Just a roundabout will do.

Were we, however, to randomly mix the elements of your Ford Taurus and my Lamborghini Diablo to create a next generation of Ford Diablos and Lamborghini Taurii, put them on the free market, remix the elements of the most popular 95% into a third generation of Forghini Tarlos and Lard Diii, and continue to do this for two score generation would we retain that mono-generational stasis?

I cannot but express my angst; you say carts on a mission: if they truely are in league all is for nought. We can only hope and pray that these attacks are individual acts of spite.

lyx writes:

I can arrange fossils in chronological order. I can recognize morphological kinship. I can construct consistent trees of nested hierarchies through multiple, unrelated pathways.

SE writes:

You can and you will notice that you have to rely on wild guesses to get from humanoid to single celled organisms.

No wild guess. Most of the conclusions are forced by the evidence. The entirety of the framework of MtM is of such a nature. The holes that do need to be filled in are the details wherein the plugs are well supported, tentatively stated or left out. Science exists quite happily with holes; indeed, because of holes.

This evidence actually fits better with LGM since other life forms could have created humanoids and skipped all the earlier steps, explaining the lack of evidence. Also, to get from one species to another (like from erectus to sapian) this could be done gradually through genetic engineering or suddenly and so this also fits better with LGM than with MtM. This is the most obvious one that is NOT evidence over LGM.

Again, until you commit yourself to the nature of LGM intervention you’ve no argument to make of what does or does not fit.

No. But you can believe it. If we believe an assertion with extreme confidence (like the one above) even though we have little to no evidence to support it, explain to me how that is not belief?

Because this is again a straw man. Science does not deal with Truth®. It is not a belief that MtM happened, but a belief that MtM is the current best explanation for what happened commensurate with all the evidence. The reason LGM is not in contention is because there is absolutely no reason to invoke intevention. The planets go round all by themselves and the chemistry shows every sign of being able to do it itself.

If your argument is that we could all be brains in jars you win. Throw up your hands and take your laps. If you have more it’s long past time to introduce it.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-26-2010 11:45 AM SocialEvolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-26-2010 6:08 PM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 25 of 29 (548282)
02-26-2010 4:04 PM


Concerns
I have developed concerns that I am equivocating. In my last post I went on the science-doesn't-deal-with-Truth® spiel but in the post prior I asserted "MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM." I am not sure the tentative phrase "more likely" adequately separates the two, but "MtM is an overwhelmingly more likely explanation than LGM" is strange, vague and wimpy. It might just be I'm not sorting it our well in my mind. I just wanted to let folks know I'm aware of it if anyone else is thing the same thing. I'll mull it over and get back to you.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 27 of 29 (548313)
02-26-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by SocialEvolution
02-26-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Bona Fides
So you are saying it is proven 100% that no intervention is needed?

Nothing is 100%. Nothing is proven. Your thinking some other art, law maybe. Best fit is the standard.

That would have to be the case if there were absolutely no reason to invoke interventionism.

I'll even give you intervention can come needed or not. One does not invoke something because one can.

Of course, if that's the case then MtM is a fact, not a theory.

MtM is not a theory. Too may parts are still too iffy. Parts — evolution for one — are theory. Others — RNA world — speculative.

So since it is NOT proven that no intervention is needed and because I only see two options:

I have a 60 faced die. Only one has a pip. The rest are blank. I only see two options.

Do you know of a more logical intervention theory than LGM?

No. LGM is about as good as one can get in the intervention scenario. Then paradoxical, time travelers followed by brains in jars. The pip on my die is probably black. Most pips are. That doesn't increase the odds of getting a pip.

we would be wise to come up with (i.e. invoke) some intervention theory so we have all our bases covered.

When the saucers land we'll have our base covered. Why rush evidence?

What do you have to link these together?

  • Biota
  • Cytota
  • Animalia/Metazoa
  • Eumetazoa
  • Bilateria
  • Deuterostomia
  • Chordata
  • Craniata
  • Vertebrata
  • Gnathostomata
  • Osteichthyes
  • Sarcopterygii
  • Tetrapodamorpha
  • Tetrapoda
  • Amniota
  • Synapsida
  • Therapsida
  • Theriodontia
  • Cynodontia
  • Epicynodontia
  • Eucynodontia
  • Probainognathia
  • Chiniquodontoidea
  • Mammaliaformes
  • Mammalia
  • Theriiformes
  • Holotheria
  • Trechnotheria
  • Cladotheria
  • Zatheria
  • Tribosphenida
  • Theria
  • Eutheria
  • Boreoeutheria
  • Euarchontoglires
  • Euarchonta
  • Primatomorpha
  • Primates
  • Haplorrhini
  • Simiiformes
  • Catarrhini
  • Hominoidea
  • Hominidae
  • Homininae
  • Hominini
  • Hominina
  • Homo

Also, the Spaghetti Monster sounds delicious. Hopefully he self-replicates so we can have unlimited spaghetti!!

He says the same of you.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-26-2010 6:08 PM SocialEvolution has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 28 of 29 (548675)
02-28-2010 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by SocialEvolution
02-26-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Bona Fides
Earlier you said people that act like [MtM] is a proven fact rather than a theory are delusional.

I missed this bit earlier and want to get back to it. Following is your statement from the OP and my response from post 3:

SE writes:

Many people seem convinced that we came from mud and that nothing else is possible.

lyx writes:

Those would be called delusional people.

At that time "came from mud" was defined as "came from mud". Over the course of the next few posts we arrived at an agreement that the definition of "came from mud", MtM, was to cover any form of naturalistic abiogenesis*.

I do not regard folks who accept a naturalistic abiogenesis as delusional. I do regard folks who are convinced that we came from mud and (inclusive) that nothing else is possible as delusional. Delusional when they conclude any such thing, and delusional in that they are competent to conclude any such thing.


My earlier concern about equivocation came out of my failure to sort out "what really happened." and "what seems most likely to have happened." as different ideas in the conversation. I'll deal with that now.

As was introduced into the conversation back in post 7, science is a tentative art. I accept that so thoroughly that it does not occur to me that I have to preface my every statement with a disclaimer. There is not currently a method for comparing what did happen with what seems to have happened. Our judgement of what seems to have happened is based upon all of the evidence we have of what did happen. If there were evidence to the contrary our judgement would be other than it is. With the invention of the chronoporter, our ability to watch it happen in real time will give us a chance to do that. If we can trust our eyes, that is.

*At that time MtM was broadly enough defined to include mud on another world becoming aliens who seeded Earth with life that became man. MH was to cover Earth mud to Earth man. But the turn of the conversation made MtM irrelevant and the term came to replace MH.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-26-2010 6:08 PM SocialEvolution has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 29 of 29 (549389)
03-06-2010 3:53 PM


So Much for Friendly
Perhaps I'm being impatient — it wouldn't be a first — but I'm rather of the opinion I've been left at the altar. And I'm not one to slink away gracefully hoping no one will notice. SE, If it was something I said…

Anyway, this discussion, having gone around in a few small circles, never really got too far along. SE's entire argument boiled down to "There are only two possibilities: A or Ā ∴ it's a flip of the coin which is truth®." SE moved the goal posts, constructed straw men, waxed incredulous and shifted the burden of proof. I suppose I could have pulled out substantial arguments as to why MtM is much more likely than LGM, but that would have me as a mad moth circling a dim bulb indeed.

Have I missed anything?

Admin: I'd like to see if anyone else has anything else to say on the topic. If SE has no objection, could you open it up to the masses, please?


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020