Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#23837 10/14/07 09:47 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
Seems that the more we learn, the more there is to doubt.

Didn't know whether to post here or not quite science. Not sure if evolution is actually science or 'not quite science'. Has the study of evolution ever delivered any tangible benefits to the human race?

From Jerry Fodor's article:

"In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted….The ironic upshot is that at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far. Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true."



Full article here:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html


Has anyone read 'Darwinian Fairy Tales'? Now back in print.

I was a believer until I read it - now I'm a bit of a doubter.


.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists "
A small number of mediocre biologists is more like it.

"I was a believer until I read it - now I'm a bit of a doubter. "
Uh ...yea. I hear that all the time.


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Socrates2007. The author has no trouble at all with darwinian evolution, just that it's more complicated than simple natural selection. The idea that Darwin should have been able to explain exactly how evolution works is completely stupid, a stupidity that IDers and creationists usually suffer from. After all Darwin didn't even know how characters are inherited. But his basic idea has been consistently shown to be completely true.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists "
A small number of mediocre biologists is more like it.


Mediocre in relation to who? Mediocre in relation to you perhaps?

I see you also play the numbers game. Very easy, but we are lucky that this 'science retarding' attitude has not always won out. Can you imagine the following conversation:

"Darwin and a small number of mediocre scientists at the fringes are trying to push this new theory. Luckily we don't have to pay any attention and can discount everything they say without even having to engage our brain to consider it."

Your dismissal is arrogant.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Uh ...yea. I hear that all the time.



Are you a teenager?

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
The idea that Darwin should have been able to explain exactly how evolution works is completely stupid, a stupidity that IDers and creationists usually suffer from.


Why am I not surprised that you don't understand that ID and Creationism is entirely distinct? Apart from one denying evolution and the other recognising it. Creationism is solely religious, ID has proponents who are atheist and agnostic.

What is the main argument behind ID? Do you know?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
ID pretends to be unreligious, but it is. Most of its adherents are very clear that they are religiously motivated when they are discussing things among their buds.

Aside from the fact that the VAST majority of IDers repeat the same arguments that creationists have already been making ...

Philip Johnson, the lawyer who started the current ID movement, has stated outright that the purpose for ID is to create a legal wedge for ramming God into the classroom.

When the icon of ID, J. Wells, for example, was speaking to the general public, he said that he approached his studies with an open mind and gradually became convinced that evolution had serious flaws. When he spoke to his own congretation, he said that he was speaking with Father (Rev. Moon) and they decided he need to refute evolution and that's the reason he went on for his two degrees. His book "Icons of Evolution" rehashing incorrect and well-refuted arguments that creationists have long been making.

The fact that there is a handful of agnostics and atheists in the ID movement, few of whom demonstrate a very clear understanding and a none a mastery of the subject is hardly evidence that it's not a religious movement.



Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Mediocre in relation to the number and quality of papers they are publishing. (Quality as judged partly by the number of citations they receive in the papers of others in their fields.)

It's not a 'numbers game.' It's a "where's the beef?" I'm aware of the claim of IDers and other creationists about the scads of well-respected scientists who reject evolution. I can't seem to find a lot of them - and their list of some 800 isn't very insightful.

There is a huge difference between what Darwin wrote and what his modern detractors are writing - not just in the opinion, but in the quality and depth of the writing.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
tff: "I was a believer until I read it - now I'm a bit of a doubter. "

s: Uh ...yea. I hear that all the time.

I'm 47 and I have heard many times how some certain person was an evolutionist until he read such and such a book that convinced him otherwise.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
So do you know the main thrust of IDs argument or not.

I suppose you could Google it.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I thought you were talking to the other fellow.

Yes. I know the 'thrust' of IDs bankrupt argument. That utterly unscientific argument is that there are certain things that are observed in Nature that cannot possibly be explained by natural causes and which therefore must have been designed.

An example of this is Michael Behe's assertion of the existence of irreducible complexity. You can get a feel for the overwhelming power of Behe's genius in his Kitzmiller testimony at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Socrates2007 wrote;

"Creationism is solely religious, ID has proponents who are atheist and agnostic."

You imply that ID is not reigiously inspired. What designed the various species? Or do you accept that adaptation to the environment is responsible for the design?

You also say:

"ID and Creationism is entirely distinct".

They are so distinct that no two people who accept either can agree on exactly what the expressions mean. Certainly their beliefs vary much more than do evolutionists' beliefs. Creationists can't even agree on when the earth was created and IDers seem to accept varying levels of evolution. Are there any IDers who accept humans evolved from Australopithecus?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
Socrates2007 wrote;

"Creationism is solely religious, ID has proponents who are atheist and agnostic."

You imply that ID is not reigiously inspired. What designed the various species? Or do you accept that adaptation to the environment is responsible for the design?

You also say:

"ID and Creationism is entirely distinct".

They are so distinct that no two people who accept either can agree on exactly what the expressions mean. Certainly their beliefs vary much more than do evolutionists' beliefs. Creationists can't even agree on when the earth was created and IDers seem to accept varying levels of evolution. Are there any IDers who accept humans evolved from Australopithecus?


I am in total agreement with Terrytnewzealand.

Moreover, Natural Selection is hardly bankrupt, and Evolution is alive and Well

Peoples beliefs depend very much upon which part of the world you come from. What religion you adhere to, or what tribe you have sprung from come.

Whether you are a God fearing Biblical scholar, or a follower of Darwin, an Atheist, a Ufologist, a member of the Dagon tribe, or even a believer in Intelligent Design, it makes no difference any more.

Since we are now controlling our own human evolvement, actively compressing, and speeding up our own human evolvement of millions of years, especially in the last few years, and the future.

We are about to overtake and outdo Nature, and God.
The agreement that 20 countrys had agreeing to ban human embryo engineering, is slowly being overturned.

Genetic replacement of diseased genes is accelerating. Human pressure has become too great.
To be able to cure,and abolish forever, the more common diseases, such as Obesity, Cystic-Fibrosis, Sexual diseases, Diabetes, even Cancer, is just around the corner.

We are about to control our own evolution, faster and better than Darwin ever believed, or God ever could.

Our Evolutionary method of reproduction, exchanges our genetic material so efficiently that it might not even be neccesary for us to evolve any further. Think about it.
We are intelligent and resourceful, and can do what we like.

Due to our evolutionary mixing, some one somewhere, or some group of people have the neccesesary compliment of genes to be able to overcome anything that "anti-life" can throw at us, or infect us.

All the DNA, and all other macroscopic replications of life, that are in our Universe, depend utterly upon the known (and mostly unknown) combinations of the atomic surfaces of each and every chemical, ajacent or near to its neighbours.
Millions of substances can combine, millions more combinations, cannot.
These combinations are totally scientific and are dependant upon their macro-atomic-surfaces, as to how they combine and interact.
Its just that a few, prehaps 24, can combine, in fact they have done so, to produce that self replicating germ...we call life.

It wont be long before we produce our own simple "life germs" in the laboratorys. Then we will see Evolution before our eyes.
The shadow of God may still be around, for some.
But Intelligent Design won't.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Well said FF, terry and mike- especially that last post of Mike's which says it all so clearly.

The point is well made that the opinion depends on the belief. I doubt that 90% of Australians have heard of ID or a controversy about evolution. It's just not at all important. Obviously it is in America.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer
We are about to control our own evolution, faster and better than Darwin ever believed, or God ever could.


Sorry, but this is an incredibly foolish statement.

There is now no evolution in humans. There is no selective pressure. Anyone can breed. Intelligent people are far less likely to breed. Welfare States and charity ensure that the unfit are protected from selection.

In developed countries it is the unfit who breed more. Here in the UK, people with careers are far less likely to have children (thanks feminism) and the unemployed breed like rabbits. We are being overrun by idiots and we are spending massive amounts of resource servicing their needs and picking up the tab trying to police their behavior.

Talking about evolution in terms of the human race is pointless.

You say we can cure obesity and sexual disease. This means that we make it possible for people with no self control to stay in the gene pool. In different times, if you didn't control your eating you would have been too fat to run from a predator. If people cannot have the sense to wear a condom then how 'fit' are they.

I'm just saying that by the very terms of evolution, science is a problem.

In an overpopulated world, science is becoming more adept at keeping the unfit alive.

Science is far from humanity's savior as you believe. It is the enemy of the selfish gene.

The Welfare State is the enemy of evolution.

Charity is the enemy of evolution.

Compassion is the enemy of evolution.

Scientists are traitors to evolution wink

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
And yes Ellis - of course opinions depend on belief.

Why would the non religious accept that there may be some evidence of a designing influence in nature?

Of course they won't - as has been said 'we cannot allow a creationist foot in the door'.

You really think this goes only one way?

You really think there are fundamentalists on only one side of the debate.


Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: Socrates2007
Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer
We are about to control our own evolution, faster and better than Darwin ever believed, or God ever could.


Sorry, but this is an incredibly foolish statement.

There is now no evolution in humans. There is no selective pressure. Anyone can breed. Intelligent people are far less likely to breed. Welfare States and charity ensure that the unfit are protected from selection.
......................................>
Talking about evolution in terms of the human race is pointless.

You say we can cure obesity and sexual disease. This means that we make it possible for people with no self control to stay in the gene pool. In different times, if you didn't control your eating you would have been too fat to run from a predator. If people cannot have the sense to wear a condom then how 'fit' are they.

I'm just saying that by the very terms of evolution, science is a problem.

In an overpopulated world, science is becoming more adept at keeping the unfit alive.
...............................>
The Welfare State is the enemy of evolution.

Charity is the enemy of evolution.

Compassion is the enemy of evolution.

Scientists are traitors to evolution wink


Starting with:-
Sorry, but this is an incredibly foolish statement.

Its OK, there's nothing to be sorry about. Just ensure that those individual statements that you do pick up-on, remain in the context of my original posting reply.

When you say "there is now no evolution in humans, There is no selective pressure. Anyone can breed".

One ought to clarify exactly what type of Human Evolution you are talking about.
There are a number different types of Evolution, that in my opinion, should be actively classified.
Prehaps there is no natural "Physical Evolution", going on that we can discern. For are we not perfectly made in Gods image? To quote from the bible.

But you are wrong when you say there is no selective (breeding?) pressure.
Just to choose a mate, takes up far more of your time than it ever did, a few hundred years ago. All you had access to then, was the local village girl.

And as you say, -and you should know, since you wrote that "Intelligent people are far less likely to breed"
Far less likely?
Or should you be saying , 'take far longer to choose?' Your 'Intelligent evolution' is already making you aware of the protection of the Welfare State and Charity. Obviously, they both come into your personal equation, when making a choice.
And so they should, along with hundreds of other far less subtle choices that you may not even be aware of.
Ranging from physical type, to similar thinking methods, even pherenomes come into play. We are more careful these days than before. Thats how "Intelligent Evolution" comes about. Intelligence begets intelligence, begets Intelligent People thru our own more careful natural selection these days.

Do you really believe the Welfare State is the enemy of Evolution?

At the very least it makes you aware of others prehaps less fortunate than your-self. Your "Intelligent Evolution of Reasoning" now allows you to further make up your mind as to what, who, and how, you accept those that make up the Welfare State.
The Welfare state is almost like a separate protected outpost within a bustling busy country. So we must not forget the thousands of workers, Doctors, Lawyers, organisers, cleaners, staff, and Charitys that your real life neighbours, have opted to work for.
You might say that their particular "Mental Evolution" has given them the foresight to live a life that is organised for the long term, allbeit with a small gain at the end of the road.
Lots of us, prehaps most of us, would be happy to work, under such circumstances.

Yes we are 'keeping them' in a sense, but that is because we, our Goverments, and Scientists, are producing monetary value, to enable this particular outpost to survive. its a form of Living Evolution and similar, that suits many of us.

Yes, you are absolutely right when you say:- "In an overpopulated world, science is becoming more adept at keeping the unfit alive"
But lets not forget ourselves. We are the fit majority, in our overpopulated world, we all rely upon the Sciences to live the way we have Evolved to live

Be aware that the whole of Society is becoming more and more dependent upon the Sciences.
Look at the items around you. Your cycle, car, TV, your printed books of learning, your E-mails via your computer. All science enabled......or would you rather stand naked and hungry in a jungle? I dont think so.

You are saying:- by the very terms of evolution, science is a problem?
Well, I am saying:-by the very terms of evolution, science is keeping us alive. All of us the Good, the Bad and the Lazy.
You never know when those genes will be wanted, one day in the future.
We have Evolved since Adam and Eve, and continue to do so.




.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Socrates- The belief in a god creates the supposition that humans were created in the image of that god and thus are the summit of the destiny of this planet. It then becomes possible to excuse the greater and stupider excesses of humanity as being literally their god-given right to stuff up the world. Some even believe that god will rescue them on December the (I think) 21st 2012 by coming again and being nice to them because they said their prayers.

This handy way out is not available to people who give credence to evolution as a possible explanation for the existence of humanity. They do not BELIEVE in Evolution. It just so happens that at the moment evolution provides the starting point for an observable, and possibly in some areas, proveable theory for the reason for the starting point of life on this earth.

And just who said evolution only improves. Maybe we are evolving downwards----oh no! STOP! can't do that!---it's that pesky made in the image of god thing again!!!

Ah yes, belief does influence one's outlook.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
Mike,

Good post & some very good points. Just don't see how we can say evolution is still occurring in any sense.

Yesterday I heard that by 2015 almost half of Britain will be obese. They reason: our biology is not adapting fast enough to our new diets and sedentary lifestyles. Well it would do if we didn't keep all the obese people who get diabetes & heart disease alive. They would be bred out of the population and high metabolism people would would become more prominent.

We can look at other types of evolution, say the evolution of society. Looking at the UK we are experiencing social breakdown (I could list the issues in detail with stats). If one generation can reverse social cohesion by such a degree, how can we talk about progressive social evolution? (I know you may say evolution does not imply progress, but in societal terms it can mean nothing else).

Furthering evolution by gene manipulation helps to keep the unfit alive. Real advances where we actually remodel humans will be for the rich only and most of the six billion inhabitants of the earth will scramble along as before.

Technological evolution is responsible for ruining society and feeding into the very basest aspects of our nature (resource gathering regardless of cost). Sense you won't agree but I'm happy to debate it.

Evolution stopped happening as soon as religion said 'put your neighbors needs before your own'.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Socrates- The belief in a god creates the supposition that humans were created in the image of that god and thus are the summit of the destiny of this planet. It then becomes possible to excuse the greater and stupider excesses of humanity as being literally their god-given right to stuff up the world. Some even believe that god will rescue them on December the (I think) 21st 2012 by coming again and being nice to them because they said their prayers.

This handy way out is not available to people who give credence to evolution as a possible explanation for the existence of humanity. They do not BELIEVE in Evolution. It just so happens that at the moment evolution provides the starting point for an observable, and possibly in some areas, proveable theory for the reason for the starting point of life on this earth.

And just who said evolution only improves. Maybe we are evolving downwards----oh no! STOP! can't do that!---it's that pesky made in the image of god thing again!!!

Ah yes, belief does influence one's outlook.


Evolution does not have anything to do with a starting point for life. Surprised you would say it. Science has not proven abiogenesis yet, but it will have nothing to do with evolution.

And how is it that you think you can tell religious people what they believe without really understanding it?

Made in God's image is nothing about our physical bodies. It is about our moral sense, our desire to create, the ability to truly love and buck the requirements of our selfish genes. It is a biblical responsibility to use the earth's resources wisely cos we will be called to account for our actions. We are also expected to use our God given minds to understand the universe and improve things (that accounts for the amount of religious scientists).

What you say has no basis and is a logical extrapolation often made by atheists without really understanding the checks and balances in religion. To talk about anyone believing and a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO STUFF UP THE WORLD is preposterous.

In fact if you believe solely in evolution then you know you will never be called to account for your actions. So although you have tried to twist it around the other way and blame the religious for wrecking the planet, the evidence doesn't stand up. Its funny that kicking the crap out of religion is the one area that rational, scientifically minded people feel they don't need to have any objective facts or evidence to draw their conclusions. Dawkins is a prime example.

As for 2012: we're told 'no man knows the day or the hour' and even so we have been told how we should conduct ourselves and it is not in conflict with the planet's interests.

When will people stop swallowing all of the rubbish that anti-theists propagate about religion and actually look at what the four billion religious people do (and not focus on the extremes of fundamentalism)?

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5