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
0 registered (), 294 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
Yesterday at 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 8 of 10 < 1 2 ... 6 7 8 9 10 >
Topic Options
#8050 - 08/12/06 03:22 AM Re: Evolution
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Sue H wrote: "Well you guys are doing a good job of masquerading as religious fundamentalist with all your sentimental irrational posturing."

First, I'm an individual. I do not agree with every point that every one else is attempting to make. I have disagreed strongly with others on this forum in the past and probably will in the future.

Second, you're a perfect example of the "give the kid a nail" phenomenon. What I've asked you for is an experiment that could concievably disprove your thesis. This is not "irrational posturing." This is what science requires - actual science, and not just the pop sci stuff that apparently "informs" your thinking on the subject.

Check out Karl Popper's "Objective Knowledge" or review a few of Stephen Gould's essays.

sh: "Why can?t you stand by your own thinking on this matter? You?re prepared to trust some other people?s opinions on topics, but not your own? "
Whose opinion do you suggest I am trusting over my own? I'm fallible. Other people are fallible. This is why we have the scientific method - so we can overcome this limitation. I think you're spouting nonsense you heard or read somewhere else - and you're deluded into thinking that being obnoxious is the same thing as being logical or making an argument.

sh: "Why not try? Construct a ?logically consistent? argument for the existence of altruism, and we?ll debate it."

tff: That's what religions do. You're missing the point. Something has to be more than just logically consistent to be scientific. A scientific theory has to generate hypotheses which could potentially disprove the theory, if it is wrong.

sh: "Well, how about you think about it for a while, and then come back when you are ready to put forth an argument on this matter."

Why don't you go read Popper - carefully - and come back when you actually understand what you're talking about? You have a story that potentially explains altruism. Science is more than just stories that explain things.

Top
.
#8051 - 08/12/06 04:28 AM Re: Evolution
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Sue wrote:
"Well you guys are doing a good job of masquerading as religious fundamentalist with all your sentimental irrational posturing.

Why can?t you stand by your own thinking on this matter? You?re prepared to trust some other people?s opinions on topics, but not your own?"

ROFL!

This will be new material for you so if you have any questions please ask:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Now why don't you stop playing games and trying to divert attention and answer the question about the child and the shark?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#8052 - 08/12/06 04:31 AM Re: Evolution
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Note to other forum participants.

At the time Sue showed up (that isn't you Kate is it?) we were discussing altruism.

Since Sue proposed the preposterous she has done everything possible to divert attention and focus from that subject.

I suggest she be dragged back to that topic so as not to invite another to troll here at SAGG.

How about it Sue? We'd like to have another member of the group but your behaviour is pure anti-science. Can you address the questions raised about your posts or does that not coincide with your agenda?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#8053 - 08/12/06 06:20 AM Re: Evolution
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Yeah. And if you did them well you could some day grow up to be the President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense of the United States.

Does anyone see them expressing sincere regret?
unfortunately extreamly true. people that do that often make great politicians because they are such good liers that they can lie to themselfs and believe it.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#8054 - 08/12/06 06:33 AM Re: Evolution
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by Sue Hindmarsh:
But you do agree to allow each other to ?get away with? sitting in your little sewing circle and gossiping amongst yourselves. What you will not allow here, is serious debate.
it appears what you call serious debate is simply agreement with you. what you don't accept is people not understanding where you are and not seeing what you see. that is not serious debate.

Quote:
You continue to ask me to ?back up? my argument when not once has anyone presented an argument for the true existence of altruism ? unless you expect me to accept your swishy-washy sentiments instead of a rational argument. That, I can not do; as I value rationality, and not sentiment.
we have presented arguments, which you ignore. you are trying to claim that the "swishy-washy sentiments" have no power over people, yet those save sentiments are what send people to the rescue time after time. your claim that pointing to them is not a rational argument is the same thing as saying that we don't have feeling, that we are nothing more than machines programmed a long time ago. that is not rational, just another sentiment.

Quote:
I?ve present examples of the logical truth that altruism doesn?t exist time and time again. Now it is up to you to do the same.
sorry, i must have missed them with all the diatribes against people being nothing but biological machines with no feeling. please show me where you had logical truths. I'm afraid that in rereading your remarks all i found was personal opinions with no evidence or logic to back them up. if i were in the guessing game, id bet that you were hurt by someone failing to do something altruistic or by the lose of someone who did something you considered foolish.

Quote:
Come on guys ? surely having a deep interest in getting to the roots of all life, has meant that you don?t take anything as truth unless you first push reason to its very extreme, and in so doing, ensure that any tenets you live by, accord with reason and logic. No one wants to live a lie ? do they?

-
Sue
first id have to find the reason logically followable. then i would have to wonder why it needed to be question. if its a lie, then there must be a reason that everyone on the planet save you believes it. perhaps you can enlighten us on why no one else sees it your way.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#8055 - 08/12/06 06:44 AM Re: Evolution
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by Sue Hindmarsh:
Why can?t you stand by your own thinking on this matter? You?re prepared to trust some other people?s opinions on topics, but not your own?
actually, i question everyone opinions, my own included. any opinion that is not question is not complete. you have to know why you have that opinion or it is just as likely to be someone else's instead of yours.

Quote:
Why not try? Construct a ?logically consistent? argument for the existence of altruism, and we?ll debate it.
i believe we have, but you just keep claiming that they are neither logical nor acceptable. who are you to decided if they are logical or acceptable. who are you to decide if we are offering you real questions or to expect us to accept your opinion without anything to back it up.

Quote:
I?ve done it by showing that altruism doesn?t exist due to all human action being caused by our attachments. I?ve explain very clearly that it is impossible for us to do things unselfishly whilst we have an ego.
no what you have done is make a statement based on your opinion and then claimed everything that was contrary to it was wishy-washy

Quote:
This is a logical statement, based on the Law of Identity: A=A. That is: on the one side we have the non-existence of altruism equallingthe fact that each and every one of us has an ego, which causes us always to act in self interest. It can?t get any simpler than that.
perhaps you should explain how you decided that there was a non-existance of altrusim on one side before you claim it proves that there is none on the other side of the equation. perhaps you could show us where you got your Law of Identity equation from in the first place.

Quote:
Well, how about you think about it for a while, and then come back when you are ready to put forth an argument on this matter.
or you could think about it and actually read the arguements with your eyes and mind open. then come back when your ready to discuss the arguements already offered rather than dismissing them as meaningless.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#8056 - 08/12/06 05:17 PM Re: Evolution
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
As dehammer points out Sue wrote:
"I?ve done it by showing that altruism doesn?t exist due to all human action being caused by our attachments."

Do you believe what you wrote Sue?

Then demonstrate some ethical and moral values and answer the question about the child and the shark.

And no this will never ever go away until you either answer the question or leave.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#8057 - 08/14/06 06:38 AM Re: Evolution
Danismyname Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/25/06
Posts: 11
Loc: Calfiornia
Definition of altruism : Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others.

Seems to me to be doing something for others (anyone) without expecting to be rewarded. Yes it might make you feel good (and thus technically be a 'reward') and that is what doing something selfless should do.

These "attachments" to others of doing stuff because of attachments to these others still falls under the characteristic of altruism... but they are not the only form of altruism. And if someone thinks they are, well, that is just sad, because doing stuff for others unconditionally is quite nice.

Top
#8058 - 08/14/06 04:20 PM Re: Evolution
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Lifeguards, the example I have used with Sue, never know who they are rescuing and never have contact with them again after the rescue (except in the rarest of cases). Sue's thesis looks like Swiss cheese after the mouse had a go at it.

And she's neither the moral nor the ethical backbone required to step up to this obvious fact and acknowledge that she is incorrect.

How about it Sue? How about the child and the shark?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#8059 - 08/15/06 12:10 AM Re: Evolution
Anonymous
Unregistered


In the main I object to Sue's coming in here and spouting off opinions as though they were researched facts. Everything she's written has been little more than unsubstantiated opinion, unsupported by any other source than her own imagination. IF and until she could come up with some professional backing for her statements, they remain opinions, not facts. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, they ought to be honest enough to label it as such, IMHO.

Top
#8060 - 08/15/06 02:00 AM Re: Evolution
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I think it is really rather clear. We all have opinios about things. There are opinions we have not supported by science such as my opinion about there being a timeless dimension or the invisible purple rhinoceros. And there is nothing wrong with stating them and labelling them, as you say, as such.

But if someone wishes to claim something as FACT then the onus is upon them to invest at least five minutes at google or fazzle and provide some support for the statement. If they can't find support ... then it IS just personal opinion.

Thank you Rose.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#8061 - 08/17/06 02:48 PM Re: Evolution
larfor Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/17/06
Posts: 2
Loc: Houston, TX
If evolution is a series of mutations or changes that occur in order for a species to adapt, why aren't there millions and millions of fossils that contain mutations that didn't work. The survival of the fittest theory would lead one to conclude that the overwhelming majority of mutations would be failures until the exact right mutation or combination thereof finally came along. Failed mutation fossils should be strewn throughout the world like fallen leaves.

Top
#8062 - 08/17/06 03:03 PM Re: Evolution
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
most of the mutations would not show up as a difference in the fossils. an example would be a slightly different color of the eyes of a dinosaur. can you tell what the norm was? no, there is no indications of this in the fossils. therefore and change in them would not show up either. same with changes in the color of the skin.

the vast majority of bones crumple without ever leaving a trace. since the vast majority of bones would not leave a trace in the bones and the vast majority of bones are destroyed, there is very little likelyhood of us finding one.

on the other hand, there are many different species that only have a few partial examples of. perhaps one of these is actually a mutation and we have never found the evidence of the normal of that speices.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#8063 - 08/17/06 03:06 PM Re: Evolution
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"If evolution is a series of mutations or changes that occur in order for a species to adapt, why aren't there millions and millions of fossils that contain mutations that didn't work. "

1) The probability of any particularly dead animal being fossilized is extremely small. The only way we see ANY fossils is because the animals represented were so numerous at one point.

2) It's not clear how you would recognize a mutation that didn't work even if you saw it.

Top
#8064 - 08/17/06 03:12 PM Re: Evolution
larfor Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/17/06
Posts: 2
Loc: Houston, TX
"the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything"

Agreed. So evolution is still just an unproven theory? Especially with the mystery of how an eye would evolve if the organism or animal had never seen light before, right? Or did light sensitive cells just happen with no known need?

Top
#8065 - 08/17/06 05:08 PM Re: Evolution
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
larfor asks:
"If evolution is a series of mutations or changes that occur in order for a species to adapt, why aren't there millions and millions of fossils that contain mutations that didn't work."

The other answers you received are good but there are another reasons I think far more important.

1. The chances of a mutation be positive are substantially lower than being negative. Most mutations large enough to be noticed will result in an embryo that never implants or come to term.

2. If the mutation is large enough to be noticeable in a fossil it may also result in a deformity that will cause a parent to disown it.

3. If a mutation is in the soft tissues likely it won't be recorded in the fossil record but might well result in an increase in susceptibility to illness or be noticeable to a predator as it is well known that predators single out animals that are different. There is not much left to fossilize after a lion has eaten the meat and the rest of the fauna has chewed on the bones.

Look around you at humans with genetic mutations. Take sickle cell anemia for example? What record will there be in the fossil record? None.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#8066 - 08/17/06 05:33 PM Re: Evolution
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"Agreed. So evolution is still just an unproven theory?"

Non sequitur. Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. No fact is 100% certain. No fact is unquestionable. This is a false dilemma manufactured by creationists. Nobody has ever seen a hydrogen atom, but we don't insist that their existence be taught as anything other than fact to high school students.

"Especially with the mystery of how an eye would evolve if the organism or animal had never seen light before, right?"
No.

"Or did light sensitive cells just happen with no known need?"
It's not about "need." It's about advantage.

Top
#8067 - 08/17/06 08:32 PM Re: Evolution
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
What comes through from these trolls is their ignorance of what science is.

They are coming from a theological background where some self-annointed expert: Doctorate in divinity discussing astrophysics or genetics or biology tells them that if they don't have all the answers ... he or she does. Here they are. Concrete. Black or white. And if you don't buy this bag of hammers you are going straight to heck for an eternity of pain and suffering.

Science, on the other hand, has nothing to sell. Doesn't threaten eternal damnation. Doesn't call other scientists heathens. And is mature and wise enough to say things such as: "Einstein was correct but we know there is a better theory."

What the religious zealots lack is integrity. The integrity to acknowledge that they don't have all of the answers.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#8068 - 08/17/06 08:39 PM Re: Evolution
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
B - I - N - G - 0 !
B - I - N - G - 0 !
B - I - N - G - 0 !

And BINGO was his name-o!

Top
#8069 - 08/18/06 04:43 AM Re: Evolution
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by larfor:
So evolution is still just an unproven theory? Especially with the mystery of how an eye would evolve if the organism or animal had never seen light before, right? Or did light sensitive cells just happen with no known need?
they did not just evolve into eyes. they started out with various types of sensoring abilities. some were usefull, others not. plants can sense sunlight. just put a plant near a window and watch as the leaves gradually turn towards that window. plants that did not have this ability were soon overshadowed by ones that could this was one of the first step on the way to creating eyes.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
Page 8 of 10 < 1 2 ... 6 7 8 9 10 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

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