20
   

Is the theory of evolution correct?

 
 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 Apr, 2013 07:21 pm
@kampung,
kampung wrote:
What are the problems with evolution?

Evolution shows us how the biology of this planet can arise without supernatural intervention. The only problem is that some people don't like having that shown to them.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  4  
Reply Thu 18 Apr, 2013 07:29 pm
@kampung,
kampung wrote:
People say there are gaps. I know of no gap thats why i am asking.

Most of the people who talk about "gaps" in evolution are Creationists reciting the propaganda they have been fed since childhood.

Whenever you hear someone complain about "gaps" ask them to tell you what they think evolution is. The first thing you'll find is that they don't even know what evolution is or how it works, which makes it pretty unlikely that they would recognize a gap even if they were about to fall into it.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 11:00 am
@rosborne979,
Evolution Ros is of course as you imply the natural course of things given the circumstances under which they occur and as for gaps, I'm sure there are gaps in every theory no matter how well proven. I understand in Relativity for instance there's still the hidden assumption of a stationary frame of reference

Doubtless evolution is perfectly natural process but haven't you wondered intuitively how so many of the physical constants seem to have been "adjusted", in some cases within a fraction of one percent, to permit our appearance on the scene, maybe the single most complex object, without whom the entire process takes on the hopeless, meaningless pall

That's not to say that such adjustments themselves weren't the result of a "natural"process since "supernatural" somehow reeks of the "impossible". Call it wild, intuitional speculation by an old fella on the verge of Alz's but there remains a suggestion for the basis of speculation that there's "something" about the Entire Megillah that we don't yet comprehend

Exploring it might even help settle the intractable battle: Whether or not She exists, as The Whole Shebang proves to be a natural phenom, Her existence merely a semantic issue
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2013 08:29 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
I understand in Relativity for instance there's still the hidden assumption of a stationary frame of reference

Then I'm not sure you understand it correctly.

dalehileman wrote:
...so many of the physical constants seem to have been "adjusted", in some cases within a fraction of one percent, to permit our appearance on the scene...

This is an illusion caused by selective perception. Without knowing how many universes in which we could never exist to observe anything, we have no perspective on the conditions which govern our own ability to perceive. These types of arguments are addressed by the various Anthropic Principles.

dalehileman wrote:
That's not to say that such adjustments themselves weren't the result of a "natural"process since "supernatural" somehow reeks of the "impossible". Call it wild, intuitional speculation by an old fella on the verge of Alz's but there remains a suggestion for the basis of speculation that there's "something" about the Entire Megillah that we don't yet comprehend

Loren Eiseley said that like this:
“If 'dead' matter has reared up this curious landscape of fiddling crickets, song sparrows, and wondering men, it must be plain even to the most devoted materialists that the matter of which he speaks contains amazing, if not dreadful, powers, and may not impossibly be, as Thomas Hardy has suggested, 'but one mask of many worn by the Great Face behind.”
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2013 08:37 am
This thread still reeks of theistic special pleading, and now with a strong overlay of dishonesty.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2013 09:11 am
@Setanta,
I always enjoyed Loren Eiseley's prose, and often take any opportunity to quote him. Smile


0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2013 09:14 am
I had not heard of him before. Mind you, i'm not attempting to pin Dale's idiocy on him.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2013 09:40 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I had not heard of him before. Mind you, i'm not attempting to pin Dale's idiocy on him.

Understood. Oh, and if you haven't read any of Loren Eiseley's works before, then you're really missing out on some beautiful and inspiring stuff (in my opinion). Many of his works are available on the web and I have a couple of threads with some sample quotes somewhere here on A2K.

Here, let me dig it up for you... http://able2know.org/topic/16748-1

Here's another source of several of his works: http://www.american-buddha.com/eiseley.toc.htm

More than any other writer, Loren Eiseley's views on nature more closely match my own than anyone I've ever met. I just never had the literary skill to say things the way he does.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2013 11:54 am
@rosborne979,
….hidden assumption of a stationary frame of reference

Quote:
Then I'm not sure you understand it correctly.

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&gs_rn=9&gs_ri=psy-ab&cp=10&gs_id=15&xhr=t&q=Relativity+there's+still+the+hidden+assumption+of+a+stationary+frame+of+reference&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Relativity+there's+still+the+hidden+assumption+of+a+stationary+frame+of+reference&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45512109,d.cGE&fp=881634b057f61f73&biw=1160&bih=806&bs=1

Quote:
This is an illusion caused by selective perception.
Thaty's why I said, "seem"

Quote:
Without knowing how many universes in which we could never exist to observe anything,
Intuition suggest millions, billions, maybe an infinite number until further ruminations whittle it down to one or two

Quote:
we have no perspective on the conditions which govern our own ability to perceive.
Our perspective is admittedly limited but working with what we have at hand Occam's razor suggests our present condition probably the only possible alternative; that things are the way they are because that's the way they have to be

The mechanism by which our part assumes any importance in this Scheme of things, however, is very mysterious
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2013 12:48 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
The mechanism by which our part assumes any importance in this Scheme of things, however, is very mysterious

What makes you think that "our part" in the scheme of things is of any importance at all?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2013 01:13 pm
@rosborne979,
And Scheme implies design.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2013 01:24 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I had not heard of him before. Mind you, i'm not attempting to pin Dale's idiocy on him.

Understood. Oh, and if you haven't read any of Loren Eiseley's works before, then you're really missing out on some beautiful and inspiring stuff (in my opinion). Many of his works are available on the web and I have a couple of threads with some sample quotes somewhere here on A2K.

Here, let me dig it up for you... http://able2know.org/topic/16748-1

Here's another source of several of his works: http://www.american-buddha.com/eiseley.toc.htm

More than any other writer, Loren Eiseley's views on nature more closely match my own than anyone I've ever met. I just never had the literary skill to say things the way he does.

Didn't Eisely write a study of starlings in the Fifties or late Sixties? I believe it's him that I read.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2013 02:08 pm
Loren Eisley is, hands down, one of the finest writers on such subjects as anthropology that I've ever run across. Discovering him back in the '80s was a mitzvah of the first water.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Apr, 2013 01:18 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
What makes you think that "our part" in the scheme of things is of any importance at all?
Mere speculation Ros based on the intuitional suggestions that Man is the most complex structure in the Universe, which without us to appreciate it seems a temporary meaningless interplay of particles

Quote:
And Scheme implies design.
Yet I see "design" as a perfectly natural process
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 23 Apr, 2013 01:34 pm
@kampung,
Quote:
What are the problems with evolution?




The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionists is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.

The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, or some other member of that crowd.

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

God Hates IDIOTS Too...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

Quote:

Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....


You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

  • It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). In other words, the clowns promoting this BS are claiming that the very lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory. Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...

    http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxBbTP7lYdWyifvIpoafdaze7s103OTEgN_V3V80q86SZLo5fE1w

  • PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...

  • PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.

  • PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

  • For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.


The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:



They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"


They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

Quote:

ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!


Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?


0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Apr, 2013 01:35 pm
@dalehileman,
Human are, by a far shot, NOT the most complex structure(?) (you mean species) in the Universe. We're not even the most complex anything on this planet. You just like us best. That's nice but hardly scientific.

Quote:
Yet I see 'design" as a perfectly natural process.


They are opposites. Natural processes occur without coaching, urging or direction. Design only occurs by outside direction.

Joe(very complex)Nation
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Apr, 2013 02:02 pm
Dale is peddling a theistic point of view, but he's too goddamned dishonest to admit it.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Apr, 2013 02:23 pm
@Setanta,
I don't think he is dishonest, precisely. Just not getting it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Apr, 2013 02:42 pm
He claims to be a pantheist, and therefore, the cosmos itself would be god. But his dishonesty arises by his insistence on a significance for the human race for which there is not only no evidence, but no good reason to subscribe. He's getting that as a hangover from normal, theistic conceits about the importance of mankind.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Apr, 2013 03:34 pm
@Joe Nation,
Quote:
Human are, by a far shot, NOT the most complex structure(?)…...nice but hardly scientific.
Remains somewhat controversial depending on your defs

http://www.google.ca/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=why+is+man+regarded+as+the+most+complex+organism&oq=Man+as+most+complex+organism&gs_l=serp.1.0.0i8i30.15201.15710.3.18539.3.3.0.0.0.0.117.326.0j3.3.0...0.0...1c.1.11.psy-ab.bfw6h0HVA9o&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=d7ab5ba41783141f&biw=1001&bih=694

Yet I see 'design" as a perfectly natural process.

Quote:
They are opposites.
Not to the apodictical existential pantheist

Quote:
Natural processes occur without coaching, urging or direction.
The pantheist sees cause and effect as the tool of an abstract agency, not at all anthropomorphic, the exact nature of which yet undetermined

Quote:
Design only occurs by outside direction.
The pantheist might respond, "Outside of what"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/24/2021 at 01:27:36