Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
39 online now:
jar, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,272 Year: 22,308/19,786 Month: 871/1,834 Week: 371/500 Day: 4/66 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Foul Tasting Bugs
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2438 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 31 of 47 (550772)
03-18-2010 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
03-17-2010 2:44 PM


Kin Selection
Then you have watered kin selection down to common ancestry, an already adequate explanation for the transmission of genes from parents to offspring where there is no action taken by, or any different behavior of, any of the carriers to enhance the survival or breeding of their kin other than surviving and breeding.

With this definition of kin selection there is no point in saying kin selection is a mechanism.

For me, kin selection is an active behavior that benefits direct kin, such as nit-picking on siblings, mates and other family members in primates. Your definition makes no distinction between this and doing nothing, a distinct loss in descriptive ability.

Just to add to what Mr. Jack said, this is an understandable interpretation of Kin selection but Hamilton described in the 60s how altruism without kin recognition could evolve in 'viscous' populations, populations with low levels of dispersal, low levels of invasion by other populations and which therefore tend to stay in a restricted geographical location.

Haldane famously explained Kin selection by saying, "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins", the development of noxious taste is just taking that principle to an extreme where it applies to hundreds or thousands of more distantly related individuals. When the only action involved is being eaten then kin recognition obviously doesn't play a part, but that doesn't mean it isn't an example of kin selection.

The fact that you don't like it doesn't change the fact that this has been a recognised mechanism of Kin selection for almost 50 years.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2010 2:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19111
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 32 of 47 (550779)
03-18-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by InGodITrust
03-17-2010 2:58 PM


Re: evolution is in populations not in individuals
InGodITrust writes:

Well, you can probably see that I am hoping to find chinks in the armour of the ToE, and I haven't found one here. I don't really expect that I will ever find a chink myself, but I'm sure they exist, and will be discovered by scientists some day.

You're looking for chinks that indicate a role in natural history for the supernatural, and these aren't the kinds of chinks scientists are looking for. Scientists seek chinks in our understanding of the natural world and then work to resolve them.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by InGodITrust, posted 03-17-2010 2:58 PM InGodITrust has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6896
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 33 of 47 (550793)
03-18-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by InGodITrust
03-17-2010 2:58 PM


This shows the failure of ID and creationism
Well, you can probably see that I am hoping to find chinks in the armour of the ToE, and I haven't found one here. I don't really expect that I will ever find a chink myself, but I'm sure they exist, and will be discovered by scientists some day.

Even if you find a chink, even if you disprove evolution, this does not prove ID or creationism. They must stand on their own. This is the part IDists and creationists don't get. They have to show evidence for ID and creationism. Even if TOE were discredited, they would still be discredited by virtue there is no evidence for them.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by InGodITrust, posted 03-17-2010 2:58 PM InGodITrust has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2010 1:45 PM Theodoric has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 47 (550816)
03-18-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Theodoric
03-18-2010 11:04 AM


Re: This shows the failure of ID and creationism
Even if you find a chink, even if you disprove evolution, this does not prove ID or creationism. They must stand on their own. This is the part IDists and creationists don't get. They have to show evidence for ID and creationism. Even if TOE were discredited, they would still be discredited by virtue there is no evidence for them.

I don't disagree with you in principle, but I don't think creationists are trying to prove creation. They're just trying to get to the point of "not falsified". They can believe whatever they want, but they only become crazy when they believe things that have been shown to be wrong. If they show that they have not been shown to be wrong, then they don't count as crazy anymore.

Plus, they too argue with the either/or logic, i.e. its either evolution or creationism, so when they "defeat" evolution, they're left with the alternative of creation by default.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 11:04 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 1:50 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6896
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 35 of 47 (550818)
03-18-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2010 1:45 PM


Re: This shows the failure of ID and creationism
Plus, they too argue with the either/or logic, i.e. its either evolution or creationism, so when they "defeat" evolution, they're left with the alternative of creation by default.

That was my point. This is not logical. What I was trying to express that the standing of the TOE had no effect on the credence or standing of ID or creationism. It is not an either or proposition, no matter what they want to claim or believe.

Edited by Theodoric, : db


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2010 1:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2010 1:59 PM Theodoric has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 47 (550821)
03-18-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Theodoric
03-18-2010 1:50 PM


Re: This shows the failure of ID and creationism
It is not an either or proposition, no matter what they want to claim or believe.

What third alternative are you thinking of? Both? Creation by evolution is still evolution...

What I was trying to express that the standing of the TOE had no effect on the credence or standing of ID or creationism.

It most certainly does. The TOE being true deligitimizes creationism/ID. If the TOE is wrong, then at least they aren't being crazy by believing in something shown to be false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 1:50 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 46 by Peepul, posted 03-19-2010 7:40 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6896
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 37 of 47 (550825)
03-18-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2010 1:59 PM


Re: This shows the failure of ID and creationism
I am not sure how you can defend this logic.

What third alternative are you thinking of? Both? Creation by evolution is still evolution...

I am not saying there is an alternative. TOE is here to stay. Creationism/ID would need to stand on their own evidence regardless of the TOE. That is why the creation/ID crowd trying to attack TOE is so ridiculous. Why don't they spend time trying to validate their "theories"?

It most certainly does. The TOE being true deligitimizes creationism/ID. If the TOE is wrong, then at least they aren't being crazy by believing in something shown to be false.

Creationism/ID can be delegitimized without TOE even existing. They are delegitimized because there is no evidence. As I said before if TOE was proven wrong tomorrow, that does not make creationism/ID a default winner. They would still have to show evidence. Whatever replaced TOE would have to bring a wealth of evidence forward in order to be considered legitimate. Since TOE has a wealth of evidence it will not be overthrown tomorrow. It will be altered in the future as more evidence is gathered but not overthrown.

In you way of thinking if I saw something I couldn't identify flying through the air but I knew it wasn't a plan, then it would have to be a flying saucer from out of space. But no. It could be, and probably is, something that I could get evidence for and identify. Maybe it was a helicopter, or a balloon or a rocket.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2010 1:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2010 3:01 PM Theodoric has responded
 Message 39 by misha, posted 03-18-2010 3:25 PM Theodoric has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 47 (550826)
03-18-2010 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Theodoric
03-18-2010 2:36 PM


Re: This shows the failure of ID and creationism
I am not sure how you can defend this logic.

I'm trying to explain to you why they wouldn't accept your argument.

I am not saying there is an alternative.

You said it wasn't an either/or... then there must be another, no?

TOE is here to stay. Creationism/ID would need to stand on their own evidence regardless of the TOE. That is why the creation/ID crowd trying to attack TOE is so ridiculous. Why don't they spend time trying to validate their "theories"?

Because they're not trying to do what you're assume they are.

They're not trying to validate their theories, they're simply trying to remove the invalidation. That way, they aren't believing something that has been shown to be wrong.

Granted, there are many who do try to validate their theory, but I'm discussing the postion that IGIT is holding in trying to find "chinks in the armor".

It most certainly does. The TOE being true deligitimizes creationism/ID. If the TOE is wrong, then at least they aren't being crazy by believing in something shown to be false.

Creationism/ID can be delegitimized without TOE even existing.

Irrelevant.

They are delegitimized because there is no evidence.

I disagree. Believing in something with inadequate evidence is not crazy like believing in something that has been shown to be wrong is.

As I said before if TOE was proven wrong tomorrow, that does not make creationism/ID a default winner. They would still have to show evidence.

Not to be not-crazy, no. And where they have "winning" as not-invalidated, proving to themselves that the TOE is wrong IS winning.

Too, for the ones that subscribe to the either/or logic, if the TOE is wrong then creationism is the position by default, aka "won".

In you way of thinking if I saw something I couldn't identify flying through the air but I knew it wasn't a plan, then it would have to be a flying saucer from out of space.

Its more like this (and its their way not mine):

If they saw something they couldn't identify flying through the air but they knew it wasn't a plane, then it could be a flying saucer from out of space. If you prove that it was a plane, then they'd be crazy to believe it was a flying saucer. But if they can show that it has not been proven to be a plane, then they can hold their belief that it was a flying saucer without being crazy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 2:36 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 3:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 4:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
misha
Member (Idle past 2971 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 39 of 47 (550828)
03-18-2010 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Theodoric
03-18-2010 2:36 PM


Re: This shows the failure of ID and creationism
Theodoric,

The issue for most creationists is NOT proving creationism. Most do not have plans for that. Their concern is that they have been taught that evolution stands in direct contrast to their faith. As long as evolution is valid they percieve their faith being under attack.

I've been intricately involved in christianity my entire life. I've taught science in a christian school. I've volunteered at the church. I'm still surrounded by people who believe that evolution is in opposition to faith.

They have placed their faith in the demise of evolution as a scientific theory. The goal of most christians is to just not look stupid or ignorant because they oppose evolution.

I know from experience teaching science and from my own personal journey that it will take time and patience to see the false dicotomy taken down. Millitaristic attitudes will not help because they feel that scientists are attacking their faith.

A major issue is that some prominent scientists have been particularly hostile in their approach. Many christians feel backed into a corner and thus lash out at all of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 2:36 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 4:06 PM misha has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6896
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 40 of 47 (550831)
03-18-2010 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2010 3:01 PM


Re: This shows the failure of ID and creationism
I agree with you that this is how they think.

The problem is with the way they think. No matter what they think proving TOE flawed does not strengthen them. I am not saying they don't think that way, I am saying the thinking is flawed.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2010 3:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6896
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 41 of 47 (550832)
03-18-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by misha
03-18-2010 3:25 PM


Re: This shows the failure of ID and creationism
A major issue is that some prominent scientists have been particularly hostile in their approach.

I disagree. Science should not have to give credence to bronze age beliefs. Scientists want to do science and not be bothered with people that are beholden to a particular superstition.

Many christians feel backed into a corner and thus lash out at all of science.

Thar is their problem. It is not Richard Dawkins' problem, or PZ Myers' problem. The religious are the ones that need to reconcile reality with their beliefs. The scientists are not required and should not be required to be sensitive to their superstitions. They should pursue science.

The issue for most creationists is NOT proving creationism.

How do you or anyone expect to convince others your beliefs are correct if you have NO evidence?

As I said to CS. It is not that I don't think they think this way. It is their logic ids flawed. I will repeat again.

Proving TOE flawed does not strengthen Creationism/ID at all. They may think it does, but in actuality it does not.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by misha, posted 03-18-2010 3:25 PM misha has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6896
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 42 of 47 (550833)
03-18-2010 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2010 3:01 PM


Re: This shows the failure of ID and creationism
Sorry for responding to the same post twice.
But this just caught my eye.

If they saw something they couldn't identify flying through the air but they knew it wasn't a plane, then it could be a flying saucer from out of space. If you prove that it was a plane, then they'd be crazy to believe it was a flying saucer. But if they can show that it has not been proven to be a plane, then they can hold their belief that it was a flying saucer without being crazy.

You can say this with a straight face? Even though there is no evidence there has ever been a flying saucer from outer space? No it may not be crazy, but it is delusional. This is what drives me nuts about certain people. If they can not instantly explain what something is or how it happened, then, of course, it must be supernatural.

How is belief in a flying saucer from outer space any different than a belief in leprechauns and fairies? Or should we treat those people as rational also?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2010 3:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2010 4:40 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 47 (550837)
03-18-2010 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Theodoric
03-18-2010 4:13 PM


Well now we're waaay too off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 4:13 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by InGodITrust, posted 03-19-2010 3:57 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
InGodITrust
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 53
From: Reno, Nevada, USA
Joined: 05-02-2009


Message 44 of 47 (550886)
03-19-2010 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2010 4:40 PM


It's my fault we got off the topic. I really just wanted to say I was satisfied with the bug info and thank everyone. But I went too far because I wanted to be open with my motive, so every one was clear that I'm the "enemy." I have a couple other questions I'd like to raise in future threads, and hope people might be as generous with those as they were here.

IGIT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2010 4:40 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Wounded King, posted 03-19-2010 5:16 AM InGodITrust has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2438 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 45 of 47 (550887)
03-19-2010 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by InGodITrust
03-19-2010 3:57 AM


Frankly IGIT the fact that you are prepared to accept the explanations we have given you as sufficient to provide a naturalistic evolution of noxiousness makes you somewhat of an exception among the 'enemy'. If you look at the threads I referenced before about mimicry in Message 11 you will see the more common pattern where when MartinV is provided a naturalistic explanation for something evolving he simply ignores it and starts again with a new tack.

Having anyone on the creation/ID side accept a naturalistic explanation for anything is something of a novelty, I exaggerate here but only a little bit.

So bring on those other questions!

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by InGodITrust, posted 03-19-2010 3:57 AM InGodITrust has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019