Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
I would think that if anyone completely understood anything, that it would be a complete nightmare.

You confuse anything with everything. It's possible for someone to understand something completely but not all things.

Certainly you think you completely understand that no one really knows anything. Does that make you any different from a navel starer that completely understands his own belly button? Or does it leave you to understand that you don't understand it and are probably wrong?

I believe that there is one thing in which we would be able to completely understand, and that is our own consciousness. The only reason that I think that's possible, is because we can explain every ineffable thing to ourselves. There no certainity that anyone would be able to understand that though...or understand the idea of their understanding of themselves.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

You can focus on your own consciousness and deal in abstractions only. The world around you, however, can be understood in the light of concrete scientific explanations.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

You can focus on your own consciousness and deal in abstractions only. The world around you, however, can be understood in the light of concrete scientific explanations.

I didn't think it was a difficult concept but you still don't seem to understand. Our conciousness is the only thing that we have, it's our everything. Everything is because of our consciousness. I'm not denying that anything actually exists outside of our consciousness, just that from our individual perspectives they don't. If you don't believe me, then what exists to a person that's brain dead? The answer is nothing. In a way, within our minds, we create the world around us through understanding. Without thought nothing would be understood, nothing could be classified, and divided into categories. There wouldn't be a single thing in existence that could be explained...with out that, everything would then be as though it's nothing (not actually nothing).

1 Reply

That's just so much meaningless babble--having individual consciousnesses doesn't mean that we each have an individual, separate reality. It's a pointless non sequitur in a discussion of whether or not there is proof for evolution.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

what is it with you and calling other people stupid, silly, driveling etc? honestly, others have intelligence too...

1 Reply

@hamilton,

I didn't call that member stupid, silly or drivelling. People can be intelligent and thoughtful, and still say a stupid thing. But as it happens, i didn't say that.

What is it with you and thinking no one should ever criticize what others write?

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

You can focus on your own consciousness and deal in abstractions only. The world around you, however, can be understood in the light of concrete scientific explanations.

I didn't think it was a difficult concept but you still don't seem to understand. Our conciousness is the only thing that we have, it's our everything. Everything is because of our consciousness. I'm not denying that anything actually exists outside of our consciousness, just that from our individual perspectives they don't. If you don't believe me, then what exists to a person that's brain dead? The answer is nothing. In a way, within our minds, we create the world around us through understanding. Without thought nothing would be understood, nothing could be classified, and divided into categories. There wouldn't be a single thing in existence that could be explained...with out that, everything would then be as though it's nothing (not actually nothing).

I agree with Setanta. Your discussion evades the question whether there is proof for evolution.

I tried to explain that you are focusing on issues of individual consciousness. Evolutionary biology focuses on explanations of the natural world in terms of natural phenomena.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

insulting and critisizing are diferent things.

1 Reply

@hamilton,

It appears that you are unable to make a reasonable distinction between the two.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

obviously i can, because i just did.
besides, isnt it a matter of opinion?

0 Replies

That you choose to offer the opinion that criticism is insult doesn't make it so. If you offer the opinion that the world is flat, you shouldn't be surprised if no one takes you seriously. You are actually reacting to the severe criticisms i offered for your goofy claims about democracy, and now you've got a chip on your shoulder. It is clear to me that you consider criticism to be insult, and i therefore infer that you are unable to accept criticism, and take offense to it.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That's just so much meaningless babble--having individual consciousnesses doesn't mean that we each have an individual, separate reality. It's a pointless non sequitur in a discussion of whether or not there is proof for evolution.

I'm not saying that there are individual and separate realities, just that people perceive all the information from every single thing differently altering our views of it. There will always be one single truth about every single individual thing, but though our perceptions, it's altered to that we can better understand it. I believe that every truth in it's original, basic form is completely ineffable. The best example I know to use to explain this, is emotions. Emotions are undeniable because we all have them to some various degree and there's very little that science can do to study something that is so ethereal. So the best way to actually explain it, is through analogies. The only other way (as in the scientific way), is to explain the physiological aspect of it. A lot of other debated topics which there's a lot of scientific proof, are more clouded by this. I'm not saying that it's wrong, just that it 'could' be wrong. Everything comes originally from our ever changing, and inaccurate perceptions in which I don't think are quite as clear as we think.

Basically, in order to deny the basic idea that I'm trying to state, you would have to state that every thinks exactly the same, experiences everything the same, and perceives everything the same. If you don't claim that, then you would have to agree that within each of our minds there are individual, and separate PERCEIVED realities...it's a basically a yes or no question of whether you believe that everyone's consciousness is exactly the same...which would be ridiculous since we have different opinions on this right now. By perceiving things differently we believe things differently. The basic theory of evolution is widely accepted, but the more detailed you get, the more people people differ on their views.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Quote:

I'm not saying that there are individual and separate realities, just that people perceive all the information from every single thing differently altering our views of it. There will always be one single truth about every single individual thing, but though our perceptions, it's altered to that we can better understand it.

That perception of reality is not altered to any significant degree, which we know because of the success of consensual perceptions of reality. For example, almost all of us react to traffic lights in the same manner, allowing us to either stop on a red light, or safely enter an intersection on a green light. The number of people who do not accept the consensual perception for whatever reason (impaired mental health, drug or alcohol impairment, deterioratie conditions such as Alzheimers) is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

That consensual perception extends to the core tests of scientific validity--replicability, falsifiability and predictive success--to an extent that arguments based on individual consciousness are meaningless in a discussion of whether or not there is proof for evolution. Your observations are pertinent to a discussion of consciousness and perception as titular subjects--but the titular subject here is not consciousness or perception.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That perception of reality is not altered to any significant degree, which we know because of the success of consensual perceptions of reality. For example, almost all of us react to traffic lights in the same manner, allowing us to either stop on a red light, or safely enter an intersection on a green light. The number of people who do not accept the consensual perception for whatever reason (impaired mental health, drug or alcohol impairment, deterioratie conditions such as Alzheimers) is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

Consentual: Existing by consent
Consent: Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence.

A vast majority of that "acceptance" is just passive acceptance. Since there's been, literally, millennia of various research on many different topics, i'm pretty sure that at least some (if not most) of the "facts" in which people present and believe are passively accepted without much thought as to whether they're true or not. So, within your mind, you can only accept them, and not believe them. Passive acceptance is basically believing what someone said, just because they said it. People can (and often do) the vary same thing with religion...yet people deny it...why? The answer, is because it doesn't fit within your beliefs, perceptions, or past experiences on what you believe to be true...which is the whole point...including evolution.

2 Replies

@Chights47,

As farmerman pointed out to you previously, science is trying to promote understanding, not belief. Your discussions of belief, individual perception, consciousness. etc. is not relevant to whether evolutionary theory is supported by evidence.

2 Replies

@Chights47,

See Wandel's remarks on belief. It is not germane.

0 Replies

Chights47, what's the definition of 'belief' that you're operating by? I think it would help to clarify the issue, seeing as how you all seem to be talking past each other based on the ambiguity of this word you are using.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Quote:

As farmerman pointed out to you previously, science is trying to promote understanding, not belief.

Oh yeah!! What reason does science have wande for promoting anything? Aren't promoters shady characters? Is our understanding of the reason science is trying to promote understanding included? What exactly is science trying to promote understanding of? Is it its own unique excellence and the concomitant right to replace the other institutions in our society as the guiding beacon of our dreams and aspirations? The voiceovers on science programmes do have an authority yearning which is not very well hidden. As it isn't in farmerman's posts. Or your's for that matter although I must admit that you show more patience with human irrationality than he does. What does science think of human irrationality and the difficulties of bringing it to accept clockwork precision and orderly conduct. What does science think of the predestination doctrine in view of its fond picture of a mechanical and determined life history?

Quote:

Your discussions of belief, individual perception, consciousness. etc. is not relevant to whether evolutionary theory is supported by evidence.

Evolution theory is supported by nothing other than beliefs, perceptions, consciousness. etc. (I can't think of anymore). It only got going in the recent epoch and evolution was doing very well all on its own for a very long time before that. An "unimaginably" long time as Mr Darwin often said.

The "what", the "when" and the "where" of something is "monkey see--monkey do" science. The "whence", the "why", the "how" and the "wherefore" are real science. Are they "unimaginable" too?

What is Chightie supposed to understand evolution theory with if not with belief, individual perception, consciousness. etc. (and opportunity). What do you think Chightie lacks that you should address with your Uncle Norman bedside manner?

You believed, as did fm, that a flagella critter could be compared to a valve in a bog flusher in order to highlight its simplicity and make it easy to explain to your imprisoned victims. Right in front of the world's gaze and under oath. And the judge had to believe it because important members of the middle-classes couldn't be judged to have lied in court. It makes more sense to compare a flagella to an elephant actually. They both have a common ancestor after all. So the diffusion of the fantastic array of chemicals in their respective nutrient across the cell membranes of the many outposts of their structure, each selecting as it does, is probably quite similar. And those who compared the flagella to a valve knew that, or I hope they did, so there you are. They were unfit to be scientists or lying.

But, as you must know by now, they were really doing their bit to set aside Christian morality. And I can make a good economic case why that is a very good thing. "Two can live as cheaply as one" is not much use when unemployment is as high as it is and machines get more efficient by the hour and nobody knows how to stop them doing. It's not right wande that you and your wife are watching the same TV set. Or using the same electric kettle. And you both reading the same newspaper is blasphemy to any self-respecting media conglomerate. You and your wife can't consume the same half-pound of butcher's tripe.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

As farmerman pointed out to you previously, science is trying to promote understanding, not belief. Your discussions of belief, individual perception, consciousness. etc. is not relevant to whether evolutionary theory is supported by evidence.

"not relevant to whether evolutionary theory is supported by evidence" that doesn't make any sense to me...As I stated before "In order for there to be any evidence or facts, you have to first understand what you're actually talking about. In order to understand something, you must first perceive it, and experience it. When something first "comes to light" in your conciousness, you perceive it then experience it." You either don't care about anything before the evidence or facts...or think that we already know everything, but that we just haven't realized it.

It seems as though you're only arguing evolution strictly from the scientific side then...so, to you, my argument is irrelevent based on what you're looking for...What I'm talking about is actually completely relevant, you're just wanting to blind yourself to it (regardless of whether you understand it or not), just so that you can explore the scientific side of this argument. What I'm talking about it actually the start of all beliefs, understandings, ideas, etc, but you'd rather just ignore that and blindly follow your beliefs...It actually kind of seems like you're altering your story to try and get rid of me...so be it, and to each their own. We could continue to go in loops, but you've obviously adamant about your side.

As far as what you seem to be looking for, however. I don't really think that evolution really can be argued (at least not at this time) since it's such a widely believed theory. In order to deny it scientifically, you would need to do a great deal of research on other possible theories, or specifically review all the evidence to double check for any descrepancies or errors...so it's possible, but not very likely to occur. I don't believe that I know enough about evolution to challenge everything concerning the idea itself. I could probably argue little bits of it, but not the entirety of it.

2 Replies

@Chights47,

Quote:

In order for there to be any evidence or facts, you have to first understand what you're actually talking about.

Yoou actually understand through evidence. Darwin had no idea what the hell he was talking about when he boarded the BEagle. He was as callow as any Creationist. He and Fitzroy would discuss these into the night. Even though Darwin had doubts he had no idea of what he was going to be about. He missed opportunities to compile mountains of evidence. Hell, he didnt even know that the birds he collected on the various islands of the Galapogos were almost all finches.

We can be blind to any subject and at some point we make the connection that these pieces of evidence lying around, begin to fit together in some fashion, the explanation of which, we gradually develop.

Also, remember, the primary definition of "belief" is an acceptance by faith.

2 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know