Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
rl wrote:
The point is that taxonomical jargon is often used to mask an argument which is basically circular when evolution is allowed to be assumed rather than evidenced.

'How are structural similarities in creatures produced? By common ancestry. How do we know creatures share common ancestors? By observing structural similarities in each.'

And so, how do you define species?

Hi IB,

from MerriamWebster.com--

Main Entry: 1spe·cies
Pronunciation: 'spE-(")shEz, -(")sEz
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural species
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, appearance, kind, species, from specere to look -- more at SPY
1 a : KIND, SORT b : a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class c : the human race : human beings -- often used with the <survival of the species in the nuclear age> d (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name (2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species e : a particular kind of atomic nucleus, atom, molecule, or ion
2 : the consecrated eucharistic elements of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Eucharist
3 a : a mental image; also : a sensible object b : an object of thought correlative with a natural object

But I thought you knew what species means...............

Seriously, I don't use any different definition than anyone else does. What I do, is understand that classifications such as species, etc are not written with the finger of God in stone. They are simply descriptive of where someone decided to draw the line and say "This one is different from that one."

(You could revamp the taxonomical system and put five additional gradations between what are now known as species. This would certainly give the appearance that a whole lota evolution's goin' on. In reality the two creatures would be no further apart or closer together than they are today.)

That is why I describe any taxonomical system as somewhat arbitrary by definition.

So when someone says, "See, they have 'become' a whole different 'species'! Doesn't that prove to you that evolution is taking place?" The answer is no, it doesn't prove anything other than these are the labels someone decided were most convenient to describe them.

Yeah, rl, I knew what species means. To reiterate, I asked you what your working definition of species was so that we could be on the same page when discussing things concerning species. Now that I've pulled your teeth, apparently.

So you're going by a definition that you yourself consider to be arbitrary. That's self defeating. Isn't there something more definitive that you base your arguments on? Otherwise your arguments against the evolution of species are as arbitrary as the definition of the word 'species' that you're using.

In the instance where you wrote, "In the case of the cichlids, the fish are still fish, if I recall."

Is that as specific as you get when defining a species, definition 1b? So, fish, any and all, are a species?

0 Replies

Nice try, IB. As I said, I'm very comfortable in using the common definition of species.

0 Replies

[url=http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm]Lewis Carroll[/url] wrote:

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
If your argument is to hold water now you'll have to argue that the general population of theists do not harbor any system of ethics, and only act morally due to the promise of punishment/reward.

No, we act morally because there is logic behind the commandments. They provide for peaceful and meaningful living. Many agnostics (I'll use Frank as an example) apply many of Jesus's teachings into their own philosiphy. Frank doesn't use them because he expects a reward or fears a punishment, he uses them because they work.

That's sort of what I've been saying. Spendius on the other hand is arguing that the great unwashed would be wrecking havoc on the streets, raping and pillaging, if it were not for their religious notions, and that enlightened people ought to oppose teaching evolution for this reason.

Since he has conceeded that religious notions do not cause people to establish ethical principles (I include a quote from after that post of mine, as the concession is more clear there), Spendius has to argue that theists do not commonly harbor any ethical principles, but act solely in their own selfish interests as they see them. The belief in an afterlife of punishment/reward would off course tend to alter such a persons perception of his own self interest so as to be more in line with ethical principles.

I am challenging his contentions.

Spendius wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
Exactly, if you aren't going to set up a system of ethics religion isn't going to help you do it. Theistic notions are not relevant. [to forming a system of ethics]

OK

0 Replies

Spendius wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
Spendius wrote:

I can't answer for "proponents of evolution".

Semantics. Oh well, you're right, make it people with an understanding of evolution.

No don't.I speak for myself.I can't answer for anybody no materr what flag they fly.

Oh but you are, you are speaking on behalf of the great masses whom you claim would adopt your stance on ethics if they attain an understanding of evolution. Still, this line of argument is superfluous as you have already conceded that religious belief do not induce ethical notions.

Spendius wrote:

OK

Spendius wrote:

This will not end full stop.

Spendius wrote:

No problem.

Spendius wrote:

That's a bit cynical but I don't mind.I could develop it but I'll refrain.

All this agreeing with me has left me with the sense that I am talking past you. So, just to recap, I have understood your possition to be the following:

* Religious notions are necessary, or at least highly desierable, because they keep people acting in line with common interests.

* Religious notions, or the lack of them, have no impact upon peoples propensity to develop and apply systems of ethics.

From which we have arrived at:
* Religious notions are necessary, or at least highly desierable, because they induce in the believer the belief that his self-interest is always in line with the common good.

Your original contention:
* People would not generally consider the comon good in making choices were it not for religious beliefs.

Which lead me to:
* People do not have any propensity to establish systems of ethics in accordance with their perception of justice, and act in acordance with them, if they would have them act in a manner which differ from their perception of their self interests.

Is this a fair representation of your possition? Please add anything I may have missed.

If you do in deed make that last contention I wouldn't mind seeing it supported.

Spendius wrote:

People believe they are establishing first principles which is not quite the same thing as establishing them and they derive a system of ethics from them which they hope will do the job.In my opinion the best set of principles yet established in the world is the monotheist one.One looks around one with a "born in time" mien and one can hardly believe one's good fortune.That might sound complacent but there it is.If you don't feel lucky you may wish to experiment with other ideas.If those who feel unlucky become a majority they will do but people like moaning and groaning as a pastime but not when they vote or not even bothering.

The way I see it monotheistic society is giving way to secular society, and things are getting better every day. [insert tirade about slavery, inquisition etc here] I don't see how the curent state of affairs is to be atributed to the notion of a single deighty. (which exists sepparately from ethical notions)

You're supposed to be making an argument that a secular world view will cause beople to become amoral, this isn't such an argument.

Wholly appart from that I find the blame the victim approach to rape reprehensible, but that is a different discussion. Personally I belong to the school that would allow people of both sexes the fredom to do anything except infringe upon the rights of others, which would include both property rights and the right not to be molested. I also belong to the school that asserts that the primary function of law enforcement is to pose a credible threath of punishment, so as to deter crime. In order for it to do so a "blame the perpetrator" approach would have to be used, even causality can be established linking others to the perpetration of the crime. Don't mind me though, I'm just letting my ethical imperatives shine through.

0 Replies

Einie wrote-

Quote:

Oh but you are, you are speaking on behalf of the great masses whom you claim would adopt your stance on ethics if they attain an understanding of evolution. Still, this line of argument is superfluous as you have already conceded that religious belief do not induce ethical notions.

Oh but I'm not.I'm saying that accepting the full gamut of evolutionary thought can't go anywhere else.It is amoral.It is just the truth-it isn't me speaking on behalf of anything.Religious beliefs are control mechanisms-logistics.Evolution is just survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence waiting for chance changes which it can't effect to result in advantages.It isn't even waiting actually.It simply happens.With no meaning and no purpose.
Beliefs don't actually alter that but they provide comfort in semblences and I'm in favour of comforting people.Evolution wipes out inconsistent beliefs,hence theology, and it is comfortless in the last analysis.It is the law of the jungle.
What does that have to do with me.Don't argue with me-argue with those propositions.I don't matter.

Quote:

Religious notions are necessary, or at least highly desierable, because they keep people acting in line with common interests.

I wouldn't confuse "necessary" with "highly desirable".We take a guess at the common interest.If the scientific/industrial age ends in an orgy of greed and violence,as some say it will,you would be looking at a common disaster.The common interest is pure speculation.

Quote:

* Religious notions, or the lack of them, have no impact upon peoples propensity to develop and apply systems of ethics.

In the last analysis yes.Assuming sanity.Suicide bombers are insane unless they are seriously coerced which some of them might be.But there's the cannibal/plane crash in the Andes.That's last analysis time.The beliefs were shed as the desperation increased showing that they were something less than ethical "imperatives".Survival over-rode them.What about martyrs then?Was it Dunbar who was mad or Yossarian.

*I have to go-I'll come back later.

0 Replies

Quote:

Evolution is just survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence waiting for chance changes which it can't effect to result in advantages.It isn't even waiting actually.It simply happens.With no meaning and no purpose.
Beliefs don't actually alter that but they provide comfort in semblences and I'm in favour of comforting people.Evolution wipes out inconsistent beliefs,hence theology, and it is comfortless in the last analysis.It is the law of the jungle.

spendius,
No one on this thread is advocating evolutionary theory as an explanation of social behavior. We were discussing evolution as an explanation of biological processes only.

0 Replies

wande-

Sorry mate.I thought we were discussing the ruling out of intelligent design.If it isn't ruled out it is fair enough to mention it in biology lessons or so it seems to me.And it is okay by me if it is ruled out.
Einie and myself are trying to work out the consequences of ruling it out in social affairs and if those consequences turn out to be unacceptable,for whatever reason,perhaps there is an argument there for the three paragraphs.

The danger I feel is people ruling ID out and ruling out the consequences at the same time.That is a bit similar to ruling out working and ruling out the consequences of welfare living.I know people who refuse to work but they accept the standard of living which results.

I'm not advocating evolution as an explanation of social behaviour.Evolution is social behaviour without the intervention of religious systems or terror.It is only religious systems which provide explanations of social behaviour outside the animal kingdom.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

[url=http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm]Lewis Carroll[/url] wrote:
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Pretty weak response Timber. Laughing

Apparently it was plain to nearly everyone except you that I use the Merriam Webster definition, not my own. Infra tried several times to get me to redefine "species" but no go. I am just fine with the common usage.

0 Replies

Spendius wrote:

Oh but I'm not.I'm saying that accepting the full gamut of evolutionary thought can't go anywhere else.

Is it your oppinion that teaching evolution, as presented in textbooks, to the general populace would result in a considerable number of people adopting "the full gamut of evolutionary thought" as defined by you?

Is it your oppinion that many people would do so who would have entertained a system of ethics, and lived by it, if not taught the theory of evolution? (I think we already ruled out this one)

Is it your oppinion that many people are now living as theists, whielding no system of ethics, who would act in ways detrimental to society if not checked by their religious belief in an afterlife, and who would do so if taught the theory of evolution (as presented in textbooks)?

Spendius wrote:

It is amoral.

Yes, but amoral in the sense that it is irrelevant to morality, not in the sense that it somehow refutes or dispells it. We've been over this, and I think we reached consensus.

Spendius wrote:

It is just the truth-it isn't me speaking on behalf of anything. [EXTRACTED]. Evolution is just survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence waiting for chance changes which it can't effect to result in advantages.It isn't even waiting actually.It simply happens.With no meaning and no purpose.

Agreed.

Extracted bit:

Spendius wrote:

Religious beliefs are control mechanisms-logistics.

I think this is one, if not the, point of contention, my perception is that the control-mechanisms function by means of ethical notions, and function just as well, and just as reliably, without religious ones.

Wouldn't you agree, observing all the "half baked" people on these threads and elsewhere? We already determined that your position on ethics would not be affected by belief in a deighty if you remember.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Apparently it was plain to nearly everyone except you that I use the Merriam Webster definition, not my own. Infra tried several times to get me to redefine "species" but no go. I am just fine with the common usage.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the pathetic spectacle of your constant harping on the example of the Lake Turkana cichlids in which you speciously intone that "a fish is still a fish." We've been down this road endlessly with you, and you refuse to accept that in the case of the cichlids, we have an observable change from one species to another, and your pathetic attempt at refutation is based upon your refusal to accept the standard definition of a species. So, it is not plain to anyone that you use that definition--in fact, we have all observed that you don't.

0 Replies

I think real life has conceded that evolution does occur within subsets of the animal kingdom. Real life continues to contend that evolution is unable to effect a transtiton establishing a new such subset. These subsets are not, according to real life, the same as a species. What real life needs to define is therefore not the word "species", but the nature of these subsets innto which life is alledgedly divided.

At least that is my take on it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Apparently it was plain to nearly everyone except you that I use the Merriam Webster definition, not my own. Infra tried several times to get me to redefine "species" but no go. I am just fine with the common usage.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the pathetic spectacle of your constant harping on the example of the Lake Turkana cichlids in which you speciously intone that "a fish is still a fish." We've been down this road endlessly with you, and you refuse to accept that in the case of the cichlids, we have an observable change from one species to another, and your pathetic attempt at refutation is based upon your refusal to accept the standard definition of a species. So, it is not plain to anyone that you use that definition--in fact, we have all observed that you don't.

Can you tell us who actually observed this change and when?

0 Replies

Farmerman has been over the data again and again--you're playing your typical stupid game of dredging up the same objections which have been disposed of--and your purpose has nothing to do with a rhetorical exchange with the other participants here. Your target is the casual reader who shows up here, does not read the entire thread, and therefore is ripe for being fooled by your burro shitto.

Same crap you've repeated time and again in this thread.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Farmerman has been over the data again and again--you're playing your typical stupid game of dredging up the same objections which have been disposed of--and your purpose has nothing to do with a rhetorical exchange with the other participants here. Your target is the casual reader who shows up here, does not read the entire thread, and therefore is ripe for being fooled by your burro shitto.

Same crap you've repeated time and again in this thread.

Not really observable then, eh?

0 Replies

As i pointed out, Farmerman has given the details of how this is demonstrated.

So, "real life," have you ever seen electrons streaming down the THHN in your walls? How do you know electricity works. How can you possibly use a computer, since you have no good reason to to believe that there is any such thing as electricity?

What a goof . . .

0 Replies

Betchya he ain't never seen no gravity, neither - just effects some folks attribute to that myth they overdignify by insisting its explained by a scientific theory. And then there's this whole atmosphere thing ... c'mon, now, who's ever seen AIR?!?!

0 Replies

certainly, no one has observed ID, so rl should be opposed to efforts to teach it in public schools.

0 Replies

Einie-

Let's just go back to this-

Quote:

That's sort of what I've been saying. Spendius on the other hand is arguing that the great unwashed would be wrecking havoc on the streets, raping and pillaging, if it were not for their religious notions, and that enlightened people ought to oppose teaching evolution for this reason.

The masses would be doing what you said if there were no laws,no police or no fear of punishment.It is not a question of the religious notions of the masses.They are merely an aid.It is a question of the religious notions of the legislators and the executive.

We had a case recently where a bank's cash machine paid out £20 notes for tens.It happened in three branches and in one of them £60,000 extra was taken out.They had queues and they were at it until dawn and they would still be at it if the bank had done nothing the morning after.I have no illusions about the masses.
How would an evolution agenda pass the legislation without some sort of ethical system and evolution has no ethical system.What can possibly be wrong with robbing banks,gun running and drug distribution in an evolutionary setting.Those,and others,(I don't like mentioning rape because it gets some people a bit over excited),would happen automatically,axiomatically if you prefer,in evolution without a by or leave.

If you listen to debates in our legislative body there are ethics all over the place.Appeals to fairness,decency and the like which not only don't exist in evolution but can't.And legislators these days emerge from the masses in the main.How does a monkey swear an oath?

The masses are a red herring.If one wished to be brutal one might easily say that nobody gives a damn what the sodding masses think.And such an idea I have heard expressed many times.

If legislators were evolutionist I know what sort of laws they would pass and what methods they would use to enforce them.In a two party democracy ethics are much more commonly expressed by the opposition party.

I suppose you could give one type of education to a certain class and another to another.But that's been tried much to our disadvantage.It still exists in truncated form though.

That's been the difficulty in the Dover school argument.The evolutionists seem to think that everybody is a member of the elite which is a nice thing to think as it is easy to include oneself I think you will agree.They like to believe that a superpower can be run by nice people who have ethical imperatives.That belief allows them to distance themselves from the more evolutionary style of a governing group which they elected.That's why I don't vote.An old Etonian prime minister of ours,a few years ago,publicly defined politics as "The art of the possible".Now that's evolutionary.It's a good job there was an opposition party and elections every now and again.
Mr Kissinger's book,a hard wade,explains it in detail.And the Crossman diaries.

Actually Einie I'm exhausted.I've had two tough days.Perhaps things will calm down and I'll go through your post then.

Don't think I'm running off.I'm just knacked.I really enjoy our debate.

BTW What's a "liberal classicist"?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

As i pointed out, Farmerman has given the details of how this is demonstrated.

So, "real life," have you ever seen electrons streaming down the THHN in your walls? How do you know electricity works. How can you possibly use a computer, since you have no good reason to to believe that there is any such thing as electricity?

What a goof . . .

As you pointed out, the evolution of cichlids into cichlids was "observable" .... except it hasn't been observed then and it's not observable now; so now you're trying gingerly to back off of that claim.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know