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 (), 56 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 12 of 20 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 19 20
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

General video on out of place fossils:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1_0DLExSeQ

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

One of the great problems that science educators face is overcoming false knowledge - things that people know that aren't true. Among the specific instances of this false knowledge is the conviction that certain characteristics "could not possibly have evolved."

Characters included are eyes, ability to use logic, morality, and so forth. In some cases, the mistake is one of basic science; in others, a flawed understanding of what evolution is and how it works. In others still they embed unjustified assumptions into their arguments.

Anyway, here's a nice paper on the evolution of empathy.

"The Evolution of Empathy" by Frans B. M. de Waal.
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2005fallwinter/FallWinter0506_deWaal.pdf

Quoted on wiki:
"The possibility that empathy resides in parts of the brain so ancient that we share them with rats should give pause to anyone comparing politicians with those poor, underestimated creatures."


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
I really enjoyed reading the paper on empathy. There are some really original ideas about what we regard as truly 'human' traits.

I heard an interesting theory the other day- it proposed that evolution for humans has stopped because we preserve those with faulty genes. It did not moralise about it, merely made that suggestion. I found the idea interesting, but very challenging if taken to the logical conclusion. And could it not be argued that such 'weaker' genes could evolve into something unexpected too, or is evolution only ever survival of the srongest and fittest, and never the smaller and wily?

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Interesting article, TFF.

Also, from MIRROR NEURONS AND THE BRAIN IN THE VAT [1.10.06]
by V.S. Ramachandran

Quote:
Iaccomo Rizzolati and Vittorio Gallasse discovered mirror neurons*. They found that neurons in the ventral premotor area of macaque monkeys will fire anytime a monkey performs a complex action such as reaching for a peanut, pulling a lever, pushing a door, etc. (different neurons fire for different actions). Most of these neurons control motor skill (originally discovered by Vernon Mountcastle in the 60's), but a subset of them, the Italians found, will fire even when the monkey watches another monkey perform the same action. In essence, the neuron is part of a network that allows you to see the world "from the other persons point of view," hence the name “mirror neuron."

Researchers at UCLA [1] found that cells in the human anterior cingulate, which normally fire when you poke the patient with a needle ("pain neurons"), will also fire when the patient watches another patient being poked. The mirror neurons, it would seem, dissolve the barrier between self and others. I call them "empathy neurons" or "Dalai Llama neurons". (I wonder how the mirror neurons of a masochist or sadist will respond to another person being poked.) Dissolving the "self vs. other" barrier is the basis of many ethical systems, especially eastern philosophical and mystical traditions. This research implies that mirror neurons can be used to provide rational rather than religious grounds for ethics (although we must be careful not to commit the is/ought fallacy).

* University of Parma, 1995
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran06/ramachandran06_index.html

More:
MIRROR NEURONS and imitation learning as the driving force behind "the great leap forward" in human evolution
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran/ramachandran_p1.html

V.S. Ramachandran is Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Professor with the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the Salk Institute.
http://cbc.ucsd.edu/ramabio.html


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Paul,

First of all, trying to disprove that the human like footprints are not fakes still doesn't prove that either evolution is not factual, or that the god of Abraham created the universe. By your argument alone, it is as possible that time travelers and aliens stalked dino prey. The thing that gets to me the most is that many creationists that I've spoken to tell me that their God placed dinosaur bones in the ground to test peoples' faith, if that were true, why would creationists go to all the effort trying to prove that the fake human footprints are in fact real? Isn't that just killing your point altogether? - sounds like you are arguing for the point of arguing.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

Does evidence suggest that sexual reproduction is irreducibly complex?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
here's a nice paper on the evolution of empathy.
Latest research contradicts the genetic origin of empathy, considering it rather a social meme. Little children often handle animals in cruel way.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16535-why-teenagers-cant-see-your-point-of-view.html

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
The cited article doesn't "contradict the genetic origin of empathy."


Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
The cited article doesn't "contradict the genetic origin of empathy."


I can say easily, the cited article "does contradict the genetic origin of empathy". And so?

By my opinion it does, because cited article illustrates, just the prolonged life of teenagers in human society can learn them some empathy. Of course I can still be wrong, but I've an argument for my claim.

Try to use magical word "BECAUSE" in your arguments - without it your reply is just an ad-hoced claim/opinion and for me it has no meaning to bother with them at all. People, who don't use implications have no arguments in fact, because they're spreading a tautologies only without true value.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
You already said that it does contradict the genetic origin of empathy. The article doesn't even mention empathy, but it does suggest that teenage behavior is a result of brain function. BECAUSE the article doesn't say anything about or even hint at social memes and BECAUSE it explicitly does say that the observed phenomenon is related to biological development of the brain and BECAUSE the article does not discuss evolution, we can safely conclude that the article does not contract a genetic origin of empathy.

I'm sure, otoh, that AWT offers an insightful and lucid account of the origin of empathy.


Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Isn't that just killing your point altogether? - sounds like you are arguing for the point of arguing.


I dont agree to many of the senarios that are being used to either prove or disprove creation , and it may be that God placed many things to test our faith , who knows but God.

the one thing that Im certain of is that life cannot begin from non-life.

you can have a planet that has no life on it at all , and that planet might have had life of some sort on it at a given time in the past , so life can be destroyed.

anytime anyone wishes to show a single instance of life that began from non-life then feel free to do so , until then I will cling to my belief that God created Life.

Its pretty simple stuff just make some dirt live that has no life in it.

Im sure that if all the smart people get together since they are so smart that they can accomplish this , and then we who believe that God created Life would know better , wouldnt we.

So just do it !

No wait lets do this first to get you warmed up... get all the smartest people together and let them create a single grain of sand from nothing.

then they can cause life to go into that grain of sand.

not a problem right?

... Well were not claiming that we smart people can create anything you know , just that we can claim that life just occured from some type of casual occurance somewhere , were not sure how it occured or the circumstances involved , in fact we havent got a clue !!

but we do know that were right about evolution and that all those who believe that God created life are wrong.

because were smart !!

right?

.




...


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
The fact of evolution does not preclude the existence of any God(s). Creation apologists have succeeded, however, in conflating these two ideas in the popular consciousness.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Evolution does not propose to describe how life arose...just how species came to be. Darwin's book title is "origin of species" not "origins of life".

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
You are supposed to be on My ignore list and I on yours.

so I cant reply to You.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I can agree that Species change due to their environment , any species can change if its environment changes to a degree that does not upset its food supply , there have even been major changes to species due to its food supply.

there have been species that have gone extinct due to food supply, if you put a group of humans in a container that has trees in it that bear fruit and you flood that container with water then the humans will climb the trees and begin to live in the trees.

their feet might even change to help them to climb in the trees
their big toes might move back toward their heels to give them a better grip on the tree limbs.

their skin might even grow thick hair to help them to stay warm.
their skin and body hair color might change likewise to help keep them warm or cool , why is it that man cant think beyond what is in the books they read that were written in the last hundred years or so?

how much information could you pass to your children if you were suddenly deposited on a deserted island with your family?

and how much information would they pass on to their children?

and where is the writting paper they would use to accomplish this
and suppose a few million years go by , what information would they have passed on?

they might have been passing on this information generation after generation just so know it all's could tell everybody how it really happened!

after all they were there , and they do know it all , right?




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Zephir
Latest research contradicts the genetic origin of empathy.

Would you specify your source, Zephir? I see nothing to that effect in your cited article.

Do you discount the research of Iaccomo Rizzolati and Vittorio Gallasse and the quite recent work by UCLA researchers on morror neurons (or, as V.S. Ramachandran calls them, "empathy neurons")? If so, I would like to know your reasoning.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4
I have been to the old city of Jerusalem and seen the supposed site where Jesus healed the blind man. It is apprx 20 metres down from the current street level. That is intensive living on 1 spot for 2000 years.
According to the bible, Adam & Eve were created 6500 years ago. This at best means our Earths crust has grown around 70 metres at best in 6500 years. Geologists that search for oil will tell you our Earths crust is around 2000 metres deep. Where did the other 1930 metres of Earths crust come from????? Dead animals, fish plants, insects and humans-pretty obvious! They say our Earths crust has been growing things for 5 billion years.
The bible is chocka full of contradictions. i.e. 3 versions of the final words of Jesus in the 4 gospels.
The hallmark of Creation/nature/evolution is 'precision'. That precision is ‘not’ in the bible and thus the bible blows itself apart as anything credible to go by. If God can create perfection in nature he can proof read the bible to make sure it was correct & he didn’t. Yet misguided Christians will still keep saying it is the inspired word of God. Most books on the shelves out there these do not contradict themselves!
Yes at some stage there was some type of creation – something has to have come from somewhere.
The reality is 5 billion years ago, things were created on this earth. And us as humans will 'never' know the answer.
We can only guess!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
It is apprx 20 metres down from the current street level.


didnt you mean 20 ft , because 20 meters = 65.61 feet

here is a picture that apears to have been taken from the top of
the pool of siloam.



Quote:
The bible is chocka full of contradictions. i.e. 3 versions of the final words of Jesus in the 4 gospels.


The original Bible , the Torah consisted of only the first 5 books of the bible.

The Torah is also known as the Chumash, Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses

they are the Books of

Genesis (Bereshit)
Exodus (Shemot)
Leviticus (Vayikrah)
Numbers (Bamidbar)
Deuteronomy (Devarim)

the oldest (known) alphabet is semitic - hebrew in origin
found in egypt - 4,000 years old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/521235.stm

Quote:
The hallmark of Creation/nature/evolution is 'precision'. That precision is ‘not’ in the bible and thus the bible blows itself apart as anything credible to go by.


the Torah was written at least 3,000 years ago.

So if man has only been here for apx 6,500 years then the information was passed down by mouth via memory generation by generation for 3,500 years until Moses had a written language that could be used to write with.

now just try and recite an entire book , any book you choose will be fine.

then add 4 more books to the list... and try to not get a word out of place.

pass that information down to your children and them to their children etc..etc..etc.. after 3,500 years have gone by and they are allowed to write the books down do you think they will have memorized every single word exactly as you told them 3,500 years ago?

I wonder if I could read a few of the scientific journals and writtings that were written down a few hundred years ago and find any flaws or contridictions?

the earth is flat - everything rotates around the earth - etc.
how many thousands of errors / contridictions can be found today with what we now know about the past in what was then called science.

Quote:
Yes at some stage there was some type of creation – something has to have come from somewhere.


and there had to be a creator there to create.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 12 of 20 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 19 20

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 UsokĀž»­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