Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

@farmerman,

Quote:

I think a natural physical phenom , sans supernatural beings, makes calculational and evidential sense.

Yes-- okay--but only for those who stand outside of society and whose cute, little, naif conceit is to put on Ignore that it is society which has supplied the means which enables them to take so lofty a view and to do their calculating in the quietude of their temples of learning.

BTW fm. There was a sheep farmer on TV here last night explaining why she would only touch new born lambs as a last resort. She had a field full of the inchoate succulent lamb cutlets none of which she had handled. She was a beefy and hearty lass and her family had been sheep farming on the land for generations. Ruddy faced and binding twine round her generous middle.

In Chap. X of Vol. I of Tristram Shandy the author invites his readers, the reverences and worships and Madams, to lay aside the book for half a day to conjecture and guess the reason for Parson Yorick's financing of a midwife in his parish and for him owning a mangy horse. There's some interesting science to be found in his explanation which few readers would ever have guessed had they followed his instructions for a twelvemonth.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

BTW fm. There was a sheep farmer on TV here last night explaining why she would only touch new born lambs as a last resort. She had a field full of the inchoate succulent lamb cutlets none of which she had handled. She was a beefy and hearty lass and her family had been sheep farming on the land for generations. Ruddy faced and binding twine round her generous middle.

Then either;
1 shes lying.
or
2She will allow a large number of lambs to die during birth.

Which one do I suspect? I would imagine that the shepherdess was a "hobby farmer"

Modern ag is somewhat more interventionist and higher tech than that practiced by the traditionally shaped people of the Glens.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

1-- Why would a large numbers of lambs die during birth?

2- She didn't look to be a hobby farmer.

We've had a few statements from you fm recently that were a load of bollocks. I'll dig them out if you want and make a list.

1 Reply

@spendius,

sheep, bred for production (IE a business) are always of concern so that the lambs present themselves properly on delivery. Sheep, due to problems of "Pasture jostling" duirng pregnancy, can have their lambs present themselves backwards, twisted, and all sorts of ways. In a well managed herd , the problems with delivery can be up to 10% and may require intervention by the shepherd. NOW, there is no way to tell which 10% are going to present problems. QWe have friends in up state New Mexico who have herds of 10 to 20000 ewes. If they are bred for "Twinning" there will be up to 2000 ewes that will need "handling" >SO, your ample shepherdess, may just be a hobbyiest who doesnt give a rats ass about lambing outcomes or death of the ewe.

We raise ours mostly for replacement stock and show(That guarantees a better price) Only about half of ours go to market and they must be finished, cared for, tails docked, whethered , given shots etc. ALL thee things require handling. There really is no decent no maintenance organic method of raising ewes and lambs.

Bollocks is your middle name there spendi. Lets get back to "Is evolution a dangerous thing?"

HAve you done any rereading of Desmond and Moore lately?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Really? Farmerman. I am so glad you told me that. I set out immediately to contact the "morons" who ruined their professional reputations by posting encomiums on the back cover.

It is also clear that Francis does not know very much about the book either. Francis said : QUOTE

I used to read Bryson and I could see several times that he had no clue on what he was talking about. END OF QUOTE

If you and he really knew what you were talking about, you would realize that Bryson has a very good bibliography and page referral in his book.

Francis( and maybe you too, Farmerman) does not know that the page from which I took Bryson's comments on the "singularity" are taken from Alan Guth's "The Inflationary Universe". I do hope that you know Guth's work and its importance relating to the "singularity".

The problem with Francis may be that he posts without thinking and does no reasearch to back up his blubberings!

And you, Farmerman, who slyly slip in the comment about "tongue in cheek" to attempt to denigrate a book which Spendius has noted won an award as a noted book to help people learn Science, should really pause before you shoot from the hip.

Thank you, Farmerman. At present I await instruction from Francis who will teach me about the Universe before the "singularity". I hope I will not have to wait too long since I am scheduled to go to Europe on business in June!

3 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

PUHLEEZE. You really gonna insist that Brysons book is a primary source for your science opinions? . i enjoyed the book, it was entertaining, so was the "Lightning Bolt Kid" or "walk in the Woods", and "In a Sunburned Country"

Fortunately I am on record in the WHat are you reading lately thread with my personal opinions about the BrysOn excursion into things scientific. So your insistance that I know nothing about the book is similar to your insistance that evolution derives from the big bang and that unfamiliarity with it negates the naturally based theory of natural selection. MAybe the biog bang is also behind the practice of artificial selstion also?

Your grasp of the issue is based upon a worldview that requires a deity, even though evidence seems to be lacking of its(her) his intervention (including the Big Bang)
\

0 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

Quote:

If you and he really knew what you were talking about, you would realize that Bryson has a very good bibliography and page referral in his book.

whats funny is that you, present the beginnings of a bibliography also. Are you so deluded to think that Bill Bryson was doing anything but trying to explain at a popular level, some of the more arcane areas of science. HE HAS BY NO STRETCH EVEN SCRATCHED THE SURFACES OF HIS AREAS OF INQUIRY.
If youre going to post authoritative posts about cosmology , Id suggest you use more than a primer on the language

0 Replies

Farmerman-- I applaud your effort to get back on track. I do hope that you do not dismiss my concerns out of hand. As I indicated, I do believe that evolution can be traced back to the singularity since the singularity was the beginning of the Universe. The evolutionary process must have existed within the singularity at least POTENTIALLY. We must be able to trace Evolution back to its origin, don't you agree?

0 Replies

Farmerman wrote: Relating to Bryson:

HE HAS BY NO STRETCH EVEN SCRATCHED THE SURFACES OF HIS AREAS OF INQUIRY.

Of course--and Bryson admits it

But neither has Francis or even the great guru, Setanta.

Therefore, I ask again, since Bryson has not revealed it to me, and, perhaps, I have not searched for it in the right places--What came before the singularity? If something caused the singularity, what was it? Where did that something reside--where did it come from?

One of the reasons I am on Able2Know is that I love to learn from those who KNOW.

When I read about this Universe, I come across ideas that are almost incredible( but scientific) and I then ponder the meanings of those ideas.

One of the stunning ideas(for me) has been the concept proposed by the brilliant Physicist, Leonard Susskind. It is called The Anthropic Cosmological Principle which says, (I hope that I recall this correctly) that our universe operates according to a whole set of specific numeric values, and our existence in the universe depends on those values being PRECISELY what they are>

Aren't we lucky, Farmerman?

1 Reply

@MASSAGAT,

Quote:

(my) comment about "tongue in cheek" to attempt to denigrate a book which Spendius has noted won an award as a noted book to help people learn Science,

I didnt attempt to denigrate it because Bryson sees it that way himself. If spendi would have looked further he would have found that in 2004 there were 4 other Descarte prize winners in science communication , all were popular or childresn books. I dont think that youre making any strong cases here Massa because anyone can quickly go through Brysion and see for themselves. Ive used several quotes from his chapter sections on Plate Tectonics . The quotes were good and his phrasing was clever. I just feel that, he didnt benefit from all the input he got from some of his technical interlocutors (for that is what they were). He still wrote his own book and didnt await long reviews from those he queried or his book would still be awaiting publication.
Ive also read "Monkey Girl" "Intelligent Thought" "Seeking Darwins God" and several of the books that alledge to report the facts of Intelligent SDSesign and the DOver Intelligent Design case in particular. All are entertaining but totally pwersonal accounts and subject to limitations of an individuals knowledge. If you wish to consider Brysons leitmotif on cosmology as primary data, knock yerself out, But please dont expect a lot of cred coming your way. (Except for choosing a quick and entertaining read, perfect for reading while sitting hours on a plane). I read David Quammens book on Islands while on a plane .

0 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

Quote:

Of course--and Bryson admits it

((((THUD)))). believe I said that several posts ago.

Quote:

I have not searched for it in the right places--What came before the singularity? If something caused the singularity, what was it? Where did that something reside--where did it come from?

WE can only evience what came a few seconds AFTER. the BB. However, a naturalistic explanation involves several levels of "Mathturbation" (thanks to soz husband for that). Scientists who share office buildings but not disciplines arent, and dont, dwell in the worlds of each other especially where no evidence yet exists. Ionus has led himself to a corner and said that we will NEVER know about the BB. Francis entered a statement that "Never say never" is the most rational from his (and I include my) understanding .If it was a "brane" interaction (as would exist in a multiverse). The evidence is there for where two or more branes collided in a multidimensional array> (My knowledge of dimensional analysis is, alas limited to equations of similitude and field equations involving only 4 dimensions). BUT, the post "Responsive singularity" leaves us with bazillions of pieces of data and bazillions a day coming in as we can see further back in time .Ths with time/space limited as a product of multiverse interaction , the resulting Universe sure fits the model really well. STILL , nobody has recorded "let there be light" as far as I know.

There are several models of how and what happened just before evrything we live in began. To conflate them with evolution is demanding something that has no basis in any rational reference. Its like the study of inelastic collisons and DNA. (Now, I dont even know if there is a relationship but, in my limited scope of knowledge, Im gonna say that the two have nothing in common even for the energy involved in peptide linkage_). To demnd such a linkage and then claim some kind of victory is a silly stance and you know it. You may demand all you wish, howver, Im very confident that the process of evolution of organic life was upwardly limiting by virtue of several stages of cataclysinic ecological occurences. SO evolution was, clearly adaptive and opportunistic from biological relationships visible from "mass extinctions" or atmospheric changes or even minor geological changes that resulted in isolation of species. NOW, if you say that every event of mountain building or vulcanism and Sulfate outgassing or continental splitting and ocean current redirection, IS designated by some Intelligent Force (God ), then Ome burden of proof is on your side to prove that as a positive.(Someones been stating about burdens of proofs and negatives, so, Hers one I dug up where you need to work on evidence to show "Intelliegence" is responsible for the PErmian Extinction.

1 Reply

Did you read my post, Farmerman?

I will replicate it again--
*****************************************************
Therefore, I ask again, since Bryson has not revealed it to me, and, perhaps, I have not searched for it in the right places--What came before the singularity? If something caused the singularity, what was it? Where did that something reside--where did it come from?

One of the reasons I am on Able2Know is that I love to learn from those who KNOW.

When I read about this Universe, I come across ideas that are almost incredible( but scientific) and I then ponder the meanings of those ideas.

One of the stunning ideas(for me) has been the concept proposed by the brilliant Physicist, Leonard Susskind. It is called The Anthropic Cosmological Principle which says, (I hope that I recall this correctly) that our universe operates according to a whole set of specific numeric values, and our existence in the universe depends on those values being PRECISELY what they are>

Aren't we lucky, Farmerman?

1 Reply

@MASSAGAT,

Quote:

our universe operates according to a whole set of specific numeric values, and our existence in the universe depends on those values being PRECISELY what they are>

Susskind had been taken for a ride for his "proactive equational world". What oif it works that the equations of apparent exactitude were the RESULT of an event, not their cause?

We see this in our world today especially in areas like "GLOBAL WARMING" There is a growing batch of science taht says that CO2 is not a cause of Global warming but that a rising global temperature is releasing gases from various sinks on the planet.

DNA isnt a CAUSE of mutation. it is merely a bar code that is consistent with the makeup of the successful mutant. In other words, to quote Stephen Gould"DNA doesnt cause evolution, DBA is merely the bookkeeping of evolution"

Once chemistry created "topo" enzymes and the means for molecular linkeage, the amount of molecular interactions are really limited, not infinitely random. Im familar with Susskinds argument and have read the reasoned discussions with those who disagree.

If you think that science is ever "settled" then you are mistaken/ Even today, the veru title of the theory of evolution may have to scrap the term "natural selection" in favor of " Systemic and Morphological adaptation"

Bed time sorry

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

If you think that science is ever "settled" then you are mistaken

How does this apply to the latest theory you are espousing ?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

What do you mean it has always been with us? Darwin only came up with the theory just over 150 years ago. Hitler used the ideas of survival of the fittest to justify killing Jews whom he saw as less fit.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ionus has led himself to a corner and said that we will NEVER know about the BB. Francis entered a statement that "Never say never" is the most rational from his (and I include my) understanding .

Your mythical believe that science is the new almighty belittles your education and training. How will we prove any of these theories because the energies required are beyond control. Even if we could unite all forces into the mother of all forces, it wasnt enough to control it then and it wont be now. Is this part of the mother-nature-is -the-new-God-the-Father theory that the women libbies love ? You dont strike me as a libbie .

Quote:

The evidence is there for where two or more branes collided in a multidimensional array

It is suggested by mathematical modelling. That is hardly evidence when there is only a hand full of people if that who can get their mind around what it all means. No one knows what a brane is so how can we base anything on it ?

1 Reply

What's all this gobbledegook got to do with whether evolution is a dangerous idea? (excepting cheesey I mean).

There's no such thing as danger in the inorganic world. The topic is a sociological one. Or a psychological, economic or military one.

There is no such thing as evolution in a world that has no language or even in one that doesn't speak English.

Francois, duc de la Rochefoucauld (1630--80) defined gravity of demeanour as--

Quote:

A mysterious carriage of the body to cover the defects of the mind.

Laurence Sterne expanded a little on that in Chap X of Vol.I of his very wonderful Tristram Shandy. Thus--

Quote:

For, to speak the truth, Yorick had an invincible dislike and
opposition in his nature to gravity;-not to gravity as such;
-for where gravity was wanted, he would be the most grave
or serious of mortal men for days and weeks together;-but
he was an enemy to the affectation of it, and declared open
war against it, only as it appeared a cloak for ignorance, or
for folly; and then, whenever it fell in his way, however
sheltered and protected, he seldom gave it much quarter.
Sometimes, in his wild way of talking, he would say, That
gravity was an errant scoundrel; and he would add,-of the
most dangerous kind too,--because a sly one; and that, he
verily believed, more honest, well-meaning people were
bubbled out of their goods and money by it in one twelve-
month, than by pocket-picking and shop-lifting in seven.

Which is an argument, I suppose, for declaring the ill-mannered affectation of gravity an arrestable offence. Which it probably would be if it wasn't for the fact that grave and self important jockstraps have won every election since democracy was invented.

It's amazing how often those A2Kers who witter about folks going off topic are the first to do so when they spot the slightest chance to give their gravity a canter around the paddock.

0 Replies

@cheesey,

cheesey wrote:

What do you mean it has always been with us? Darwin only came up with the theory just over 150 years ago. Hitler used the ideas of survival of the fittest to justify killing Jews whom he saw as less fit.

It stands to reason that evolution has always been with us. We just didn't always know it. You are confusing theory with history.
Hitler did not appear to me to consider the Jews less fit. He picked up on people's jealousy and hatred of them and used them for the devil in his schemes. I believe he said if there had been no Jews he would have had to invent some.
Anyway, you can find people of all persuasions doing heinous acts in the name of whatever they are doing. That does not make them correct. It was not atheists in charge of inquisitions, crusades, witch trials and so forth.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

A Membreane "brane" is the outer surface of a separate univers and where several universes expand , they touch. Their touch is defined in a simple CArtesian surface that fairly well follows the shape of the known universe. OF course its a math deduction, The fact that here is a math deduction is surprising enough toi me (Im not as versed in theoretical physics ). However, knowing about the very evidence that immediately begins leaving its footprint a few tenths of a second after the Big Bang, needs only a definition of what the neighborhood looked like a few seconds before. Im not so quick to diosmiss all the evidence we have to date.

1Our Universe, (Like the bazillions of galaxies) is shaped like a pizza, not an egg (indicating a series of limited directional forces (Or a surface of contact between two branes)

2 Our universe is sending us scads of radio data that is directional and seemingly shifted toward the blue at outer reaches. These outer reaches,send us information at (c) and weve created maps of the shape of a "singularity"

3Spectra from the various elements occur in a series of apparent shear planes indicating the possible occurence of sevral pulses of inflation, where each one forms heaviewr elements
_____________________________________________________

Whereas evolution first needs to get past its own singularity barrier, that is the formation of the living cell, which according to data from Newfoundland was possibly a bit just over 3Billion years ago.

Several events in the earths atmospheric chemistry correlate quite nicely with the fossil record to show us that life "Took a hance and won or lost" with every time the atmosphere or environment changed. The fossil record here , is also quite valuable because, rather tha showing a world "so finely tuned" to just be perfect for life, Life persisted IN SPITE OF the environments du jour, not because of them (Thats why SUsskinds argument has some flaws in logic(in several notable scientists minds).
When all the various contaminants of our planet began to accumulate (eg water,methane and acid organics, Co2 and Methane, Oxygen and Nitrogen, SUlfate and SO2, Co2 and SUlfate), life seemed to follow an "Adaptive" curve to try to fit itself to these different conditions.These occured in at least 7 pulses of lifes "Sorting itself out" .
I feel that we have a fairly detailed understanding of lifes struggle and development yhrough time, we have a fair understanding of the universe immediately after startup, and we have several decent working hypotheses of what happened just before.
AS I said to MAssa, I dont see the linkeage of cosmology and evolution any more than I see a linkeage between inelastic collision and ballistics and the internal reactions in DNA and RNA. What Leonard Susskind :DID" say concerning this is

Quote:

If there was a moment of Creation, its been obscured from our eyes and our telescopes by the veil of explosive inflation that took place in the prehistory of the Big Bang [/quote[(excerpt from "The Good Fight" Susskinds own critique of the concept of Intelligent Dsign)

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

It stands to reason that evolution has always been with us. We just didn't always know it. You are confusing theory with history.

You're confusing communication with typing words Ed. We know that what has always been with us has always been with us. Calling what has always been with us "evolution" is a circularity. If what has always been with us is labelled "evolution" then obviously evolution has always been with us. Your statement says nothing.

And calling what Darwin said was "evolution" is only 150 years old. What has always been with us is what the point of the argument is all about. Some don't think that what has always been with us is defined by how you are using the word "evolution". Or by how Darwin used it. Or by how Darwin's followers use it.

Hitler is reported by authoritative sources to have included mental defectives and those whose ways of life he considered unfit, such as gypsies, in his cull. In which case cheesey is correct. Evolution theory has no argument with Hitler's methods, and those of his followers, relating to culling, sterilisation and eugenic experiments. Or none that I can see.

2 Replies

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know