3
   

Evolution of the Brain?

 
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jan, 2018 09:56 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
First Note: You claimed theory was fact
YES I DID. What of it? A theory i also a fact (see S J Gould's explanation)

READ S. J. GOULD HERE


S.J. Gould wrote:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, “fact” does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.


Ok.. But he's putting this in context of evolution, not as the rule for theory definition? I think what he's inferring is there is indisputable evidence (at least in his mind) to support the theory for evolution.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jan, 2018 10:05 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
First Note: You claimed theory was fact
YES I DID. What of it? A theory i also a fact (see S J Gould's explanation)

READ S. J. GOULD HERE


I liked that paper by the way...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2018 04:28 am
@jerlands,
Quote:
Ok.. But he's putting this in context of evolution, not as the rule for theory definition?
That is a fact Wink . However, even more , Gould has, in another paper , reaffirmed that this is what a theory is about particularly when speaking of a scientific theory. He also is saying that facts are not always "true forever". Facts are only as good as they remain free from later editing.
always being modified.

The reason that Gould was sounding so combative in that paper was because he was the convenient target of Creationist spokespeople who enjoyed"Quote mining" Gould's popular articles that appeared in DISCOVER magazine. Quote mining involved a picking out of someones written or quoted material an then collapsing it with other sentences . His statement of "Facts are not indisputible" was used in a picnic of fraudulent attempts to discredit whatever Gould had to say.

Around here we have one of our members who used to collect lists of quote mines and present them as "how scientists (like Gould) really dont believe in evolution"

Gould was often called our "Accidental Creationist" by some folks in the Geological SOciety of AMerica. He was constantly being misquoted and this , more than anything, would frost his shorts.

Im glad you enjoyed the article, Gould was always good at his popular science writing. His texts and professional articles are more often just piles and piles of data and facts with connective tissue made from classical or baseball references.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2018 11:24 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
He also is saying that facts are not always "true forever".

This is what I like about him in that he leaves himself open to change, but not all his views jive with mine. He feels man will never find answers to questions about his inner meaning through nature and this I strongly oppose. My views accept and incorporate metaphysical. Actually I think my views accept everything because frankly I feel we just don't know.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2018 12:53 pm
@jerlands,
Heres another one ,

"The only way to prove a theory, is to not disprove it"
Arnold Zwicki
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2018 12:57 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Heres another one ,

"The only way to prove a theory, is to not disprove it"
Arnold Zwicki


I can see that... the test of time... but that doesn't give it permanence.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2018 04:16 pm
@jerlands,
Darwins own theory had to be severely modified with the addition of genetics. Also, Darwin made two really major blunders about his theory because he didnt have a clue about genetics.
His theory assumed that "inheritable traits" become dissolved through continued generations an we know now that once genes are fixed and expressed, they never go away. They can be "Turned off and on" but never disappear unless the entire line goes extinct..

It may be this year that S Korean researchers "re-animate" the woolly mammoth.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2018 04:21 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
It may be this year that S Korean researchers "re-animate" the woolly mammoth.

I wonder what's going to come of it?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2018 04:26 am
@jerlands,
A mammoth, hopefully.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2018 12:29 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

A mammoth, hopefully.


Ya think? How 'bout another ice age? No. that can't happen.
I'm sure it's a curious thing but genetic properties 14,000 years old aren't that different. Ya think they're trying to bring back neanderthal? I don't really see the purpose but like the mountain is there so you climb it?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2018 12:31 pm
@jerlands,
The mammoth DNA comes from Wrangel Island and was from a young beast about 3500 years ago. Not that old.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2018 12:34 pm
@farmerman,
Ok.. so why? I'm missing the significance.
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2018 12:59 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

The mammoth DNA comes from Wrangel Island and was from a young beast about 3500 years ago. Not that old.


The Last Wooly Mammoths Died Isolated and Alone
I still don't get it.
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2018 01:08 pm
@farmerman,
Cosmology can be approached at a micro level, a macro level and everything in between but I don't believe we'll arrive at any solution unless we're able to synthesize it. Seeing the forest through the trees? But the intent to obscure or remove harmfully I think a crime.
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2018 02:01 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

we know now that once genes are fixed and expressed, they never go away. They can be "Turned off and on" but never disappear unless the entire line goes extinct..


What's a SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms?) You think we can't un-fix something?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2018 02:26 pm
@jerlands,
thats several traits controlled via a single nucleotide in a gene.Like those Russian "wild"arctic foxes that were bred in captivity for several generations and they retained the features of neotony (retained features of the puppy) and these multi traits made the arctic foxes become "friendly", piebald, floppy eared, shortened muzzles and a few other trait controlled by one gene that mostly was considered to be a " gene that hqd something to do with behavior with littermates". Cichlid fish allso.




Quote:
You think we can't un-fix something?
Your question was about wild populations right?
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2018 02:35 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:


Quote:
You think we can't un-fix something?
Your question was about wild populations right?


So you're saying a dog is a dog no matter the degree of inbreeding? You can't make a cat out of a dog? Our genes seem to be controlled by a very large number of influences and I understand the attempt but playing around with something that's not fully understood might be damaging. GMO's are an example. Glyphosate is probably one of most devastating toxins released upon this planet.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2018 03:02 pm
@jerlands,
we seem to be all over the ballfield here. Now are we dissin Roundup?
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2018 03:06 pm
@farmerman,
I appreciate the sensitivity in the arctic fox but some truths might be self evident and don't need to be dissected to be understood.
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2018 03:58 pm
@farmerman,
Let me ask a personal question... directly... What's your purpose? Do you want to destroy this planet or do you support this planet? I think that's really what's at stake here.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/12/2019 at 05:57:19