So, I was up late watching Nick News... [Archive]

Preechr

Dec 1st, 2005, 10:33 AM

I vote YES, please do stick this.

I asked before for an example of evolution in action and I got a picture of an ugly little bat that was slightly different from another ugly little bat in response. 60 years of scientific agreement that all species evolved from the same single celled amoeba HAS to have come up with something more tangible than the emergence of a new breed of bat. NO ONE DISPUTES THAT IS HAPPENING. Even Jesus freaks have dogs and cats, people. I'm looking for a dog that evolved from a salamander, not a miniature doberman that evolved from a regular doberman.

If you cannot provide your missing link in any form, you will have to admit that Darwinian Evolution is just as much a mythological belief system as any other religion... that it is NOT based in fact.

Please, think about this for a minute. I know just about every one of you reading this right now is thinking I'm an idiot because EVERYBODY knows that ALL scientists agree that we evolved from monkeys. I've watched the Discovery Channel specials too, and it's truly a compelling myth made very visual by modern computer animation. I have yet to see the documentary that shows me the proof behind this myth. I thought this was supposed to be science! Where's the proof?

I won't be here the rest of the day, but I'll check back in tomorrow or this weekend. I'll be very interested to see you guys fill all these gaping gaps in my knowledge of these very important scientific facts.

Sethomas

Dec 1st, 2005, 11:29 AM

And yet you oppose religious doctrine? Moron.

ziggytrix

Dec 1st, 2005, 12:43 PM

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

^ evidences. not incontravertable, but as of yet, not contraverted, i think.

but i'm gonna latch onto something else you said, but (i'm hoping) you didn't actually mean, for a bit here.

we didn't evolve from fucking monkeys. we PROBABLY evolved from Homo neanderthalensis, which PROBABLY evolved from Homo erectus, which PROBABLY evolved from Australopithecus africanus... anyway, it wasn't a fucking monkey that gave birth to a human, and any scientist that suggests that is a fucking retard.

wikipedia has a nice page on paleoanthropology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Evolution

Spectre X

Dec 1st, 2005, 01:19 PM

I would say that the fact that all living things on earth share a surprisingly large amount of genetic material would back up common descent pretty nicely.

Big Papa Goat

Dec 1st, 2005, 01:36 PM

The fossil record shows biodiversity to be a function of time. Thats the fact of evolution. This is, by the way, a fact, not a theory. All evidence points to it, it could be disproved, but it isn't. The fossil record is pretty damn incomplete, but it's also pretty damn consistent. Oh wait, its all just PATHOLOGICAL SCIENCE- COMING UP WITH NEW THEORIES TO SUIT NEW EVIDENCE, GOD, WHAT FUCKING FANATICS.
anyway, thats basically why us CRAZY SCIENCE CULTISTS think that evolution of NEW SPECIES occurs. Actually, there are fewer FACTS to support evolution within a species, evolution within species is based on what you post-modern pseudo-religious fuckheads like to call THEORY.
Oh ya, and it was apes not monkeys.
And another thing! Science isn't about "proof", you're thinking about philosophy and logic and math or something there. Science is about evidence, and inductive reasoning, so it isn't entirely perfect.
SO ITS A MYUTH THEN RIGHT?
No, its disprovable (go look for some human bones imbedded in some pre-cambrian rock, then we'll talk about whats a myth). Also, it was based on observations (FACTS) not imagination.

BUT WAIT, WHAT IF THE FOSSILS I SEE AREN'T THE SAME AS THE BLUE THAT YOU SEE?

"all observable data indicates life is so very complex, precious and brittle that it was MEANT by SOMETHING to be rather than just random happenstance with no meaning"

interesting that all available evidence points to DYING AND REPRODUCING as the only ENDS of life.
so, you can take your teleological fantasizing and sum um my bonum

kellychaos

Dec 1st, 2005, 04:23 PM

I see no reason that the two cannot co-exist wherein evolution is the method by which a higher power's plan flourishes. As to whether his intent matches results is another matter entirely (see "free will" vs. determinism arguments).

ziggytrix

Dec 1st, 2005, 11:34 PM

I think a LOT of religious people feel that way, Kelly. But they don't get as much attention as a screaming, red-faced extremist.

ScruU2wice

Dec 2nd, 2005, 01:16 AM

we didn't evolve from fucking monkeys. we PROBABLY evolved from Homo neanderthalensis, which PROBABLY evolved from Homo erectus, which PROBABLY evolved from Australopithecus africanus... anyway, it wasn't a fucking monkey that gave birth to a human, and any scientist that suggests that is a fucking retard.

I think we kicked neanderthal's asses to exintinction, becuase the evolution branch split at homo erectus. I don't remember alot of anthropolgy though.

Big Papa Goat

Dec 2nd, 2005, 02:39 AM

I think you're right about us kicking neanderthals ass

And kelly, while what I think I called the 'fact' of evolution, the change in biodiversity over time is not inherently inconsistent with any mechanism, including divinely ordained teleology, I'd say there's a lot of other evidence that doesn't really support that.
Like I said, pretty much all evidence indicates that the only 'ends' of any organisms existence are the perpetuation of that organisms genes. I guess thats a bit of a bold claim, but I can't think of any features of any organisms that do anything really inconsistent with genetic self interest. Humans notwithstanding, since we have all this intelligence and such that complicates things, although if you look hard enough, a lot of human behavior can be seen in terms of reproductive advantage.
That all being said, in the absence of any evidence of planning, the biosphere can be considered a spontaneous order, where the interaction of different elements (genes) attempting to maximize their interests ( *replication* -genes aren't selfish, but the ones that reproduce the most exist the most, go read Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, its good stuff) under universally applied rules (laws of nature) results in diversity.

Well wait one second there! How can there be diversity, if all these genes have the same interests, and follow the same rules?
Thats where mutations come in! And later down the evolutionary road, sex! Both of these fantastic phenomenon result in new genetic codes, which get out into the world to try to propogate themselves! Alright, the sex one is a bit complicated, but kinship altruism is a whole 'nother lecture for you kids ;(

BUT WAIT ONE SECOND AGAIN THERE GOAT! Mutations? What a load of shit! Are you saying an amoeba JUST RANDOMLY mutated into a snake which mutated into a monkey which mutated into a man? That's nonsense! If mutations are really causing all this diversity of which you so nonsensly speak, then those mutations need some kind of plan! Face it, you blind disciple of Darwin, life isn't random, diversity can't come from randomness, only from PLANNING AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Interesting point preechr! If I might direct your eyes a little higher up this very post, and your mind a little higher than crudely disguised fantasizing, perhaps you'll see an explanation!
Nope? Alright then. Mutations may randomly generate new genetic codes, but the way these codes continue to exist is by being better than all the other codes at reproducing, under those universally applied rules alluded to earlier!
There's a few things left unexplained or poorly explained here, hopefully some of you bright young anti-rationalists will be able to point them out!
I hope you do, because I for one am heck of enjoying this thread.

KevinTheOmnivore

Dec 2nd, 2005, 09:34 AM

I think a LOT of religious people feel that way, Kelly. But they don't get as much attention as a screaming, red-faced extremist.

Yeah, I actually almost said this verbatim before you did.

It may however depend upon sect and denomination, I dunno. Some seem able to reconcile evolution and Christianity, whereas others need to push something like I.D. in order to create like some hybrid between the two.

I think you could do better than ID.

kahljorn

Dec 2nd, 2005, 03:05 PM

"I think you're right about us kicking neanderthals ass "

I saw a documentary once that said we all lived in peace and probably mixed genetic material if you get what I'm saying hubba hubba ;) If I remember right their speculation was based on remains found in Spain(?).

kellychaos

Dec 2nd, 2005, 04:40 PM

There's a philosopher that wrote a thesis on the "selfish gene" or something like that. I'll get back to you on that after some research.

kahljorn

Dec 2nd, 2005, 07:04 PM

Selfish gene..? isn't the wanton need to gather one of the most basic bio-survival tools inherent in all creatures? :doesntlikejokes

Sethomas

Dec 2nd, 2005, 07:24 PM

Actually, I believe that's the point of the book. I considered buying it, but put it off.

Big Papa Goat

Dec 3rd, 2005, 03:30 AM

Actually, its the wanton need to reproduce, not to gather. And as far as I know, the only philosopher to respond to Richard Dawkins Selfish Gene theory was completly fucking retarded, and her critique was quite ridiculous.
Like Jesus said though, most creatures don't really gather at all.

Big Papa Goat

Dec 3rd, 2005, 04:17 AM

Make yourselves sheep, and wolves will eat you
Not if sheep are MEANT for WOOL instead of meat.

Seriously though, there's nothing I hate more than when people talk about how thinking and faith are equivalent, or when people say that thinking is useless or impossible. It's frustrating >:

And don't tell me thats not what you were just saying in this thread preechr.

Was I wrong about that signature quote though? I do remember some right wing crank with that sig, maybe it was someone else.

kellychaos

Dec 3rd, 2005, 11:09 AM

Actually, in the theory, the "blue print" of the code was such that the genes weren't out for self-interest so much as success towards reproduction ... i.e. the "thinking man", as such, was the being that was more inherently selfish. Intellect? Give it a name.

Big Papa Goat

Dec 3rd, 2005, 01:20 PM

Are you suggesting that the tendency of genes to maximize their reproduction is based on their being purposefully designed to 'multiply and subdue'? or what, I don't actually understand quite what you mean

But you could call genes 'self-interested' if you consider reproduction to be their interest. Genes that don't code for some kind of reproductive advantage for themselves just get tossed into the dustbin of history.

kahljorn

Dec 4th, 2005, 12:20 AM

"its the wanton need to reproduce, not to gather"

Yea, that would generally fall under the effect of Bio-survival, more so even than 'gathering'.

"most creatures don't really gather at all"

You're right, I think it's mostly the habit of mammals. From what I understand most things involving any form of community(even if it's "Selfish"-- you could almost call reptiles selfish by nature which is what made me relate it to 'Oral' tendancies) are generally considered the foot of mammals, which I guess would make them "anal".

Selfish and anal.

kahljorn

Dec 4th, 2005, 06:35 PM

I read up on this topic and it seems rather ridiculous from certain angles. I understand the idea the genes that do good things for us are more likely to reproduce via the goodness keeping us good, but after that it kind of trails off.
Kelly, being keyed towards reproduction makes sense for genes, considering their inherent function is to essentially hold genetic blue-prints for later days. Kind of like a "save file" for a video game or something. But then, that's kind of common sense in a way... it seems they would carry that feature just by being our "Foundation" and considering reproduction is usually through the transfer of genetic material... pointingouttheobvioustheories?

This theory seems to be trying to hint at the idea that all of life is directed towards evolution into better organisms(or in this case genes) from a genetic viewpoint, maybe insisting that genes are what cause evolution. That's about all it provides. Kind of boring, really. I thought that idea was already inherent within the concept of evolution? It seems all he really did is link genetics and evolution together(I'm guessing that might be historically true?), but seeing as how genetics are kind of the building blocks of our organism it really wasn't a far fetched connection. I mean, what did people think? That the organism itself goes through some kind of metamorphosis? I like to get cozied up in my cocoon. That seems more unlikely than genetic alteration.
All in all this theory presents no new understanding of how evolution occurs, just a very loose why. I just read a brief summary of it, though, so maybe I didn't get into where it gets too "Crazy" and just suffered through the shallow end.

I thought this had sounded familiar, though. He's the guy who "invented" "memes". Ironic considering how popular memes are.

Big Papa Goat

Dec 4th, 2005, 07:50 PM

Are you talking about Dawkins' book?
Because the point of Dawkins theory was that it's genes, not organisms that are the unit of competition in evolution. It may seem pretty obvious now, but around the time he was writing it a lot of people were talking about how evolution selects for or against species or individual organisms. The book doesn't have any really 'crazy' ideas, but it definitely clarified evolutionary theory, especially at the time it was written.
Organisms don't evolve, genes do, thats the point of the book in a nutshell.
And the point of the theory was explicitly not that evolution is about making organisms (or genes for that matter) "better". Evolution to Dawkins was simply the result of the differential reproductive success of different genes. Which in case any of you were wondering, is in fact what evolution is about.

Sethomas

Dec 4th, 2005, 07:52 PM

You can't typeset what genes do. I don't know if the author was purporting that there is one gene that exists in all species that makes them selfish, but I don't know. That seems over-simplistic, so I'll assume he's not.

For one thing, be careful to not say "gene" when you mean "allele". You could have a smart gene and end up with alleles for retardation, or a blue eye gene and end up with alleles for brown eyes.

Evolution as a whole does not have any tendency other than survival. At the genetic level, this amounts to no tendency whatsoever other than randomness. A gene for pale skin would be advantageous for survival in the Nordic region, but it'd be fatal in Southern Africa. A sickle-cell gene would put you at a statistical advantage in malaria-ridden areas, but elsewhere it'd simply kill people senselessly.

In my book I talk about an evolutionary phenomenon reflecting the human mind's tendency toward sin, that is, concentration of the self over devotion to the community. The entire spectrum is represented in nature, from alpha male lions killing the males juveniles of a pride for sexual primacy, to a worker bee stinging an attacker for the sake of defending the hive. So, there is no "selfish" gene except where it is proactive for propagation of the species.

CaptainBubba

Dec 4th, 2005, 08:09 PM

If this whole evolution thing is so true and its supposed to work by a slow and gradual process of random mutations in which the fittest for a particular niche reproduce at greater frequency throughout generations of their bloodline, then answer me this simple question Mr.scientists:

Why can't I fly?

CaptainBubba

Dec 4th, 2005, 08:10 PM

And don't even try to give me any of that "Your body is too heavy" bullshit. Birds "evolved" from dinosaurs and they weighed like a bajillion lbs.

Evolution just got its ass handed to it. kthxbye.

Sethomas

Dec 4th, 2005, 08:14 PM

Because you're too poor for a plane ticket?

Big Papa Goat

Dec 4th, 2005, 08:15 PM

Genes don't get selected for when they propgate the species, they get selected for when they propogate themselves. Not always the same thing.

And from a genetic reproductive stadnpoint, a colony of social insects can really best be considered a signle organism, since the individuals comprising it all have the same genes, and only one of them reproduces. So from a genetic perspective, none of the individual organisms can have a 'self-interest' opposed to the 'interests' of the hive. A lion on the other hand doesn't share as many genes with some other lions offspring as he would his own, so he's ok with killing other lions and their offspring if it will help him have more succesful offspring.
The point Dawkins was trying to make I think was that genes have a tendency to code for phenotypic traits that result in their (the gene itself) own propogation, not that there is some gene that codes for a phenotypic trait of selfish behavior.

CaptainBubba

Dec 4th, 2005, 08:23 PM

Ok I didnt unmderstand any of that but my priest told me that you would say something confusing and you did!

Also my priest tells me that you may have come from monkeys but we sure didn't lol. Hes a funny guy. He gave me a whole book that talks about how evolution is flawed scientifically bewcause one time this scientist did a carbonation dating test or something on a bone from a monkey and it said it was like 300,000 years old and the earth started 10,000 years ago so come on. I mean, all we're asking for is the missing link. Its just one link and its not like its a generic and immaterial name for species that may or may not have existed and whose discovery wouldn't prove or disprove anything other than possibly some mundane anthropological indexing knowledge of the progression of one species to another.

Or at least thats what my priest says and I'm a retard.

Sethomas

Dec 4th, 2005, 08:32 PM

Most priests believe in evolution, dude.

CaptainBubba

Dec 4th, 2005, 08:39 PM

Have you ever even stepped foot below the bible belt friend?

Did you grow up for 15 years moving from state to southern state where undoubtedly if someone found out you weren't a creationist youd come back from lunch to a desk stacked with anti-evolution pamphlets?

I never said most priests dont believe in evolution.

I get the feeling that in real life you are one of those guys who when someone makes a joke you say something like "heh, yea but if his dick was so long he could suck it hed die when he got an erection so thats probably actually not possible. hey you made that whole limmirick up didnt you! FAKER"

Ohhhh wait I know what this is about. Still upset that no one found you remotely funny in the mock wars? Its ok man you still have your uh, pride or something I'm sure. Keep on referencing calculus btw it makes you look really smart dude ;p

xbxDaniel

Dec 4th, 2005, 08:40 PM

Is there any way to truly prove how old the earth is?
I don't mean to sound sarcastic, I'm seriously just ignorant when it comes to this stuff.

Rosenstern

Dec 4th, 2005, 08:45 PM

Nothing in historical science is really ever proven. Evidence suggests about 4.6 billion years, based on astronomy, astrophysics, geology, et al. In the face of all the evidence, saying the Earth is only six thousand (or whatever) years old is at least bold, and at most ignorant.

Edit: No, preechr, I'm not about to list all the individual pieces of evidence for you. Do some research for youself if you're curious about these strange things called facts.

ArrowX

Dec 4th, 2005, 09:24 PM

The way I can see all this creationism-evolution can co exist. If god created us in his image, could he not have created us as his sucessors as well? Do we not have the skills to create life and change it as if it were clay? It wasn't handed to us on a friggin platter, out race earned what it now posessess. Earned without any noticeable help form the almighty. Got started with large animals but that could have been an experiment. They failed so he wiped his slate clean to start over again. Evolution is mereley god perfecting his sucessors.

xbxDaniel

Dec 4th, 2005, 09:30 PM

That's a good perspective. If there is a God would it not be possible that he doesn't intervene in everyday activities and instead life moves on through natural selection and what works. Hell, the title of this thread is misleading. What have you all covered here? Evolution, genetics, religion, philosophy, etc. Am I missing something? Personally I think that God created a universe, but he left it to its own devices. Occasionally coming down on a few moments i.e. Jesus. Also, I don't really believe in Adam and Eve or Noah. Those two seem to be too ridiculous.

Wow, my support was weaker then a beam made of monkey asses.

Big Papa Goat

Dec 4th, 2005, 09:32 PM

Deism has always been just a stepping stone or a euphimism for atheism

Sethomas

Dec 4th, 2005, 10:31 PM

I love getting Bubba riled up.

CaptainBubba

Dec 5th, 2005, 12:38 AM

FUCK YOU MAN. JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Sethomas

Dec 5th, 2005, 12:41 AM

So how's topology coming? Sorry to hear about you losing to OJB.

CaptainBubba

Dec 5th, 2005, 01:00 AM

Topology is ok. But man my multivariable calculus class is kicking me hard. I mean, caculating all those numbers and stuff. Damn hard.

Sorry to hear about you losing to someone who lost to OJB and therefore vicariously to me. Must be rough.

Sethomas

Dec 5th, 2005, 01:33 AM

Before this becomes a flame war, I thought I'd just point out that I was lightly pointing out a hypocrisy as a friendly chap, and my online friend then helped me out by taking something way too seriously after having "mocked" me for taking things too seriously.

Good thing this is just the philosophy forum, or else my pride would be in serious disrepair.

Preechr

Dec 5th, 2005, 11:15 AM

Well, sorry I lied. I did not make it by a computer this weekend. Unfortunately, I've had only long enough to read through what's turning up to be a fun thread. I'll get back to you, though so far there's not a lot to respond to when you throw out baseless assumptions such as I'm some sort of bible thumper that believes in Christian doctrine, dogma or, y'know, Christ.

Your entirely missing proof of anything was quite compelling, though. It's what you don't say, right? :winkwink

When I do get a minute, we'll talk about some of the attempts toward proving Darwinian evolution that were miserable failures. Maybe that'll jog your collective memories. You can pre-empt some of those till I get back if you want, or you could just talk more about how I'm a Neo-Baptist Evangelist that's trying to subliminally convert you all into my trailer park cult. Either way, I'm sure it'll be fun to read...

Rosenstern

Dec 5th, 2005, 11:29 AM

I don't put any stock in those logical proofs, either. Not for evolution, God, so on and so forth. I always thought the guys who try to logically prove anything like that are asking for a kick in the head.

KevinTheOmnivore

Dec 5th, 2005, 11:55 AM

So flame war it is.

ziggytrix

Dec 5th, 2005, 12:06 PM

kahljorn

Dec 5th, 2005, 12:13 PM

In my book I talk about an evolutionary phenomenon reflecting the human mind's tendency toward sin, that is, concentration of the self over devotion to the community. The entire spectrum is represented in nature, from alpha male lions killing the males juveniles of a pride for sexual primacy, to a worker bee stinging an attacker for the sake of defending the hive.

Freudian anal complexes? Yes.
Alot of this is, especially with community(as in mammals) has to do with the "Strongest" getting all the bitches, it is basically a simple way of breeding genetic strengths while killing off the weak... Of course, it's not guaranteed to work, there's always the chance they could be born with some strange condition that makes them dance funny. It doesn't matter how big you are if you can't dance. Than you just breed a danceless society. Those die out soon enough.
Kings, queens, nobility? Although I'm pretty sure Dawkins speaks against inbreeding. Maybe because part of evolution is the connection of myriad (different) genes? I don't know. Just guessing. But all the same that represents some kind of flawed anal-evolution, societally. Which makes me wonder why he's the inventor of memetics. Somebody "Clarifying" something as serious as evolution, ranting on about societal mal-nourishments?
Does he[Dawkins] assume mammals are more evolved(don't make me clarify this with some kind of jargon) than reptiles, big papa goat? Or does evolution consider that? I guess that would be objectively true, at the very least.

"The point Dawkins was trying to make I think was that genes have a tendency to code for phenotypic traits that result in their (the gene itself) own propogation, not that there is some gene that codes for a phenotypic trait of selfish behavior."

I agree entirely. By it's very nature the seed is meant for sowing, no? ;)

"Why can't I fly?"

If you were dating a woman with crazy terodactyl like wings that threatened to claw you and take you back to it's nest with a tail would you try to have sex with it? Okay than.

"And from a genetic reproductive stadnpoint, a colony of social insects can really best be considered a signle organism"

I agree, that's why I was bringing up the anal stages, those are generally considered entirely mammalian; not even reptiles have it which you can see by their mating habits. They are purely fight and flight characteristic. Which brings me back to teradactyl woman. See? She wouldn't even want to have sex with you, she'd just want you to fertilize her eggs and bring her food, than she'd go die in a desolate cave after being struck by some autoimmune disease or falling into a river.

"Is there any way to truly prove how old the earth is? "

Yes? I mean, unless all the ways we have to test things is wrong, but for the most part it seems pretty observable and even seems to be in accordance with religious predictions(egypt was in the bible, afterall). Of course, the hilarious thing is that supposedly the book of Genesis was actually from syria which is a culture founded around the time the Egyptian culture was founded. Which is speculated to be pretty far back, and the original syrian genesis tablets supposedly say the world has been around for a long long time. Of course, religious experts would describe it as mythology. Other people might even describe it as bullshit. But if you read genesis it seems to go further back than just a couple thousand. That's just by going by cultures other than Christian influenced, and I'm sure by alot of Christians as well, though.
What is the approximate year religious experts say the world was created?

"That's a good perspective. If there is a God would it not be possible that he doesn't intervene in everyday activities and instead life moves on through natural selection and what works."

Sure. While we're at it why don't we just stop assuming God is a person and start assuming God is just the whole of the functioning world around us. Obviously if he was just the functioning world around us, he would be omniscient(he'd know all the knowledge we know, because we know it-- even what is false, because it's in the universe), omnipotent and omnipresent(he is everything in the whole universe right??). Then evolution is just a part of God, part of his body. But you know, what do I know. He's just omnipresent.
According to some sources, though, God isn't even here. Why else would we goto heaven to be in union with God? But then God has what, ten different names? Maybe there's different Gods who are all the same God but are God's of different places or levels of existance/consciousness. That would probably put it in contrast with all the other religions in the world and even with many forms of science. The father, the son and the holy ghost or some such bullshit could maybe be used as an example.

I met mescalito last night. MESCALITO DOME DECREE. I didn't fall asleep until like five in the morning. Godspeed and neurosis are the best music when you're entering the realms of the unreal with Henry Darger.

Good morning.

CaptainBubba

Dec 5th, 2005, 01:08 PM

If you were dating a woman with crazy terodactyl like wings that threatened to claw you and take you back to it's nest with a tail would you try to have sex with it? Okay than.

HELLS YEA MAN SHE COULD FUCKIN FLY. WED BE ALL DOIN IT IN THE SKY AND SHIZNIT.

kahljorn

Dec 5th, 2005, 01:33 PM

"HELLS YEA MAN SHE COULD FUCKIN FLY. WED BE ALL DOIN IT IN THE SKY AND SHIZNIT."

And you sir will be the man who makes man capable of flight. Before you not one man has found himself attracted to pterydactyl woman. Thank God, now we can all be hideously deformed, or your children can be hunted for sport and money. Preferably the later the economy needs a little boost.

ziggytrix

Dec 5th, 2005, 02:52 PM

Tales From the Darkside: The Movie (segment: Lover's Vow)

Rae Dawn Chong as sexy terradactyl monster!

FIFTEEN YEARS AGO!

kahljorn

Dec 5th, 2005, 07:32 PM

This sounds like a movie Italian Stereotype would enjoy.

Preechr

Dec 6th, 2005, 12:42 PM

WTF do you want preechr, a nice easy-to-digest sound-byte proof? There is evidence for evolution. The fact that you don't understand it, does not mean it does not exist.

Again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Yes, the obvious assumption to be made here is that I'm just too dumb to have understood any of that. Why is it that when I complain of a lack of enough time to even respond to posts you expect me to have ridden off on your 50 page tangent apparently delving completely into the mysteries of vestigal limbs in animals, which though titled in such a way as to appear to be proof of evolution, actually seems to a non-believer to be much more like evidence that some parts of biological structures seem similar? You ask if I want a summary? What is so hard about typing out: "Many bone structures of reptiles, birds, fish and mammals are similar, which indicates that all creatures share common ancestry." ??

The difference is that phrasing your comment more like my suggestion would be too much like something you'd find in an actual discussion, right?

I spent about 10 minutes skimming the website you googled up. Is my summary somewhat correct? The parts about fossils of many separate types of animals showing evolution from, like, a reptile to a bird are potentially fascinating... but I wonder why I'm expected to take it on faith that these parts of the fossil record prove so clearly that these various boxes of bones are what they are represented to be.

Believe it or not, I am somewhat capable of reading things. I can read stuff from one side of this argument that says something along the lines of: A Supreme Being created the universe and everything in it according to His Grand Design in 7 days. Trust Me... and then I read stuff from the other side of the argument that says essentially that the universe and all the stuff one might find within it just sort of happened over time for no particular reason... and then it seems a lot like that's followed up up with an eerily similar: Trust me.

Honestly, I expected a bit more from the latter side. While the former exists in a realm of human thought that precludes empirical reality on it's first page, the realm of Science at least in my understanding was supposed to be more tangible. Could you google me up a web page that presents common descent in such a way as to convince a skeptic? I'd do it, but I've always failed at that for some strange reason.

Yeah, maybe I'm unfairly skeptical. I'd love to join your religion, but I'm afraid I'll need a little evidence that you are in fact onto something here. Mostly, I've been told that since so many other people that are much smarter than me believe it, it must be so. I've yet to see a clear illustration that these are actually facts that we are discussing here. Darwinian evolution has been taught to children as fact since the sixties. Why is it so damn hard for an adult to see what's supposed to be so well-documented and proven? Holders of Marketing Degrees with an IQ of 75 can put together Power Point presentations... Is there a reason smart scientists cannot put together a web page that makes me say: Wow! They're right!

My point in this thread is NOT to convince any of you that God created the world or that He or She exists or that you should send me money so that I can finish my church on the Moon. My point is that evolutionism SEEMS to be as much a leap of faith as is creationism, and I'm asking for help from those of you who are obviously intellligent enough to have approached this subject at one point as skeptics and were convinced by facts. What's so wrong with asking for summarized data? This has been acknowledged as FACT for 50 years now by the scientific community at large. What's with the "Trust me?" Doesn't that seem odd to you guys?

Let me be clear that I have not one time posted that I believe creationism or intelligent design to be superior to evolutionism. I have consistently maintained that they are, or at least appear to be, on equal footing as they all require the belief in something that I cannot see. Because creationism and intelligent design both stem from Theology, I'm fine with that. I cannot forgive science for similar behavior, however. Evolutionists NEED to sit down and win this fight concretely or else they need to admit that they cannot and concede that any other theories are equally possible.

For me, and this is why I'm actually interested in this debate at all, I see this as a moral issue. There are very specific ramifications for the different types of thought produced within society from the basis of each of these theories, and I have my preferences. I am looking at this debate from a third person point of view, not as one invested in either side. When I see those purporting to be men of science, facts and logic behaving just as petulantly and suspiciously as any other mystic, I question it.

The fact that none of you has even yet considered answering my questions openly, preferring instead to make me into a character and attack that, hints to me that you've never actually tried to be skeptical of evolution yourselves.

Preechr

Dec 6th, 2005, 12:52 PM

Why do you even pretend to debate if you have no inclination on at least listening? At the very least he offered evidence, all you offer is rhetoric that's not even yours.

Preechr

Dec 6th, 2005, 01:06 PM

I don't generally believe things because everyone else believes in them. But you're welcome to, while we're at it why don't we travel back in time to nazi germany. Alot of people believed killing lots of jews was Okay, so it must be okay and also true. Sanctioned by God. ...;)

kahljorn

Dec 6th, 2005, 01:09 PM

"A Supreme Being created the universe and everything in it according to His Grand Design in 7 days."

And here's the box of bones of the supreme beings supreme creationist hand.

kahljorn wrote:
Why do you even pretend to debate if you have no inclination on at least listening? At the very least he offered evidence, all you offer is rhetoric that's not even yours.
"I agree entirely. By it's very nature the seed is meant for sowing, no? Wink "

I agreed with him, jackass. Learn to read. In fact, I agreed with just about everyone on everything they said, all I did was add my own thoughts to it. Thanks for ruining a beautiful thing though.

P.S. Do you have penis envy or something? If not, why are you hounding(not quite hounding yet, maybe puppying?) me thread to thread trying to prove me wrong with stuff that doesn't even apply?

At this point I'm guessing none of this applies to me. Sorry for my above words.

Preechr

Dec 6th, 2005, 01:20 PM

Um, huh?

ziggytrix

Dec 6th, 2005, 01:46 PM

Yes, the obvious assumption to be made here is that I'm just too dumb to have understood any of that. Why is it that when I complain of a lack of enough time to even respond to posts you expect me to have ridden off on your 50 page tangent apparently delving completely into the mysteries of vestigal limbs in animals, which though titled in such a way as to appear to be proof of evolution, actually seems to a non-believer to be much more like evidence that some parts of biological structures seem similar? You ask if I want a summary? What is so hard about typing out: "Many bone structures of reptiles, birds, fish and mammals are similar, which indicates that all creatures share common ancestry." ??

Look, asshole. That's the evidence. Your summary is trite, as would be any sound-byte summary of fucking VOLUMES of scientific research. If you don't like it or think that I'm somehow relying on a blind faith, as opposed to a sincere trust in the scientific community, since I haven't read nor can I succinctly summarize every damn thesis written on the topic, well you can just kiss my ass. :)

kahljorn

Dec 6th, 2005, 01:48 PM

I still can't tell if he's applying that to me or using my glorious words against you guys :(

Preechr

Dec 6th, 2005, 02:14 PM

I still can't tell if he's applying that to me or using my glorious words against you guys :(

I honestly didn't think you could have taken it any other way... certainly not as an attack on you...

Look, asshole. That's the evidence. Your summary is trite, as would be any sound-byte summary of fucking VOLUMES of scientific research. If you don't like it or think that I'm somehow relying on a blind faith, as opposed to a sincere trust in the scientific community, since I haven't read nor can I succinctly summarize every damn thesis written on the topic, well you can just kiss my ass.

Am I being that hostile to you? ...or is what I'm asking just making you feel attacked?

That was pretty snide... not that I'm erasing it, just acknowledging it. Sorry.

To put a much finer point on it, your above post basically says that you looked into the subject and, at a certain point, decided to start trusting the scientists, right? Is that fair? I seriously am not trying to color your words or disparage you in any way...

My follow up question would be at what point was that. What did you have to hear that made you think: Yep, I'm buying this now.

I ask because I've not heard it, whatever it is, yet.

kahljorn

Dec 6th, 2005, 02:23 PM

If you type in, "Evidence for evolution" you'll find like a billion things. Even the "Best evidence against evolution". I typed it up and found something about how(supposidely) humans in pre-birth go through various states, including one where they develop gills, then a tail and then a fur lining.
Why should something like that occur at all? Apparantly they really serve no purpose.
According to the same webpage, many animals have bones and often even organs that serve absolutely no purpose except to apparantly prove evolution.

http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

Also, since we now have the power of GENETICULOUSIS we can apparantly see the similarity between organisms that were thought to be closely related. For example, I believe the genetic difference between humans and apes(or wherever we came from) is something like two genes
I believe there are alot of other genetic "Evidences" that could possibly, at the very least, show you there is evidence towards it.

Preechr

Dec 6th, 2005, 02:53 PM

There are also plenty of sources for ideas that attempt to refute evolution... believe it or not without even referencing a Bible!

Since you were so kind as to provide a helpful example, I'll give you one from the other side of the fence: Darwin said that his theory would be proven false if we found evidence of organisms that are irreducibly complex. Through the not so new wonders of microscopes, we can observe the inner workings of individual cells and note that the complex activity in those little buggers could not have evolved through natural selection.

The intregal mechanisms of a cell function together similarly to the individual citizens of a little town, but where each member is vital to the survival of the whole community. The cell itself really only reproduces itself as a whole, and each little citizen is responsible for a small portion of this overall goal. How did that evolve?

There are a lot more examples to be found. I can use google as well as anyone else. My problem is that I have not yet found the proof I need to believe that evolution is no more than a religion for atheists and agnostics. I've so far been told that science is not about proof, but I've read scientific stuff that left me pretty convinced that some science is very much about finding out facts.

Preechr

Dec 6th, 2005, 03:00 PM

I did already say, BTW, but I suppose it bears repeating in light of your choice in links, that hardly no one refutes natural selection as a means of evolution within a species (or is it genus, I dunno...)

The term I heard that I'm liking to use here as the source of controversy is gonna be "common descent." The idea is that we all evolved along with all other life from the same single celled animal. That is very different.

Just a possibly unnecessary point of clarification.

ziggytrix

Dec 6th, 2005, 03:04 PM

To put a much finer point on it, your above post basically says that you looked into the subject and, at a certain point, decided to start trusting the scientists, right? Is that fair? I seriously am not trying to color your words or disparage you in any way...

Basically. I studied chemistry and physics a lot in college before switching over to computer science, so I have a great deal of respect for the scientific method and for shared knowledge of academia. I do NOT have a doctorate in Biology, but I'm willing to grant that there is not some vast conspiracy amongst Biology professors to trick all the Jesus crispies into believing in dinosaurs and cavemen.

Did you know that every single living thing is made of Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Uracil arranged in different patterns. Have you ever studied DNA (and RNA)? To me, it is the most compelling evidence for common origin evolution. But my understanding of cell and molecular biology is not sufficient to explain it properly, and certainly not sufficient to use as an argument to someone not genuinely interested in understanding it.

ziggytrix

Dec 6th, 2005, 03:13 PM

Lemme go back to the thing you said that really put me in a hostile position toward your "argument".

then I read stuff from the other side of the argument that says essentially that the universe and all the stuff one might find within it just sort of happened over time for no particular reason... and then it seems a lot like that's followed up up with an eerily similar: Trust me.

No, it isn't. If you don't trust the findings of any scientific endeavor, you are more than welcome to do your own research, using any existing research available to support your findings, and to submit it to the PLoS Biology journal. It's your total failure to grasp the difference between my trust in a changing, living scientific community and some zealot's faith in an immutable ancient scripture that really puts me off.

So yeah, fuck you buddy. ;)

Preechr

Dec 6th, 2005, 04:19 PM

Yep. I've heard the simplicity and complexity of genetics can also work against the idea of common descent. I am in no way unmotivated to understand this or anything else. I am asking to be made to understand. My threshold for acceptance and belief is just as high on this, however, as it is for religious ideas.

Does my contention ring true at all to you that the Goliath of Science, based in actual facts, shouldn't be still going toe to toe with the David of Religion on this? The biggest black eye that evolutionism has is that it has yet to find a way to silence it's critics that are based in ignorance and superstitious ideas.

Is there any other science that is so controversial on the existence level? I mean, sure there's moral controversy on some stuff, but nobody's really running around doubting the Big Bang, planet orbits, black holes, dinosaurs, cloning, genetics or just about anything else regarded as scientific fact. Isn't that odd?

String theory and other nebulous ideas on the fringes are always referred to as controversial ideas... is this where the theory of common descent belongs?

kahljorn

Dec 6th, 2005, 04:38 PM

This is ridiculous, especially the part with cells.

"the intregal mechanisms of a cell function together similarly to the individual citizens of a little town, but where each member is vital to the survival of the whole community. The cell itself really only reproduces itself as a whole, and each little citizen is responsible for a small portion of this overall goal. How did that evolve?"

"The integral mechanisms(organs) of the human body function together similary to the individual citizens of a little town, but where each member is vital to the survival of the whole community. The human body itself really only produces itself as a whole, and each little citizen is responsible for a small portion of this overall goal. How did that evolve?"

First off: Like i said, ridiculous. Just because something is so small that we can, as of now, not understand or observe properly it doesn't mean it's "irreducible complex". That's like saying cells didn't exist before microscopes because we couldn't see them. Also, not everything about the human body is completely understood. I just proved evolution and God wrong.

Secondly: It evolved just like anything else did, in this case all the "Organs" of a cell are mutually responsible for the upkeeping of the whole, just like any "organism"(are cells even considered organisms?) Without all of it's organs, it might not function at all, or it might function at a reduced rate.. or in a rare occurance it might function even better which generally results in a catastrophe to whatever it is a part of.

Thirdly: It has already been discussed that in darwin's time it was thought organisms themselves were the proponents of the actual evolutionary occurence, but now a days we know genetics are responsible. So, perhaps we should equate it to searching for irreducibly complex genetic structures?
Knowledge changes, the fact that people who refute it stick with old termonology and old facts really undermine alot of what those people are saying.

Fourth(or 2 squared): Clearly, the cell evolved in a matter in which it could survive as a living thing(again, are cells really organisms?) which meant adopting various parts to make it complete, trial and error? I don't know. Perhaps before today's cell there were different cells that didn't work very well, some cells are known to be weaker or mutated(cancer) occasionally even in today's world.

Fifth: There are different types of cells for Plant life. Obviously that indicates some type of difference, possibly indicating change.

My guess is it evolved in a way that when it finally became a successful "Organism" or "Cell" it reproduced itself and voila. All cells really point at is an evolutionary success of the most fundamental pattern. The idea that most cells are pretty much the same for alot of animals actually supports evolution, I think. Just like atoms being beneath everything supports other scientific fields.

I don't even know that much about this topic, but i feel the assumptions you are making show you know even less. I've never studied this topic, never found "Evidences" that made me "Believe" it(which puts us in the same boat), but through rational thinking it's obvious the evidences you are throwing out against it don't support either side in it's entirety. If you're going to argue, do it properly, not with vain knowledge. You are merely hiding evidence behind ignorance; not just yours, but the world's-- as if it proves anything.
Neither side necessarily KNOWS. Okay, buddy? Neither side necessarily knows everything about everything. Science has been proved wrong before, even when it was thought to be right. But regardless, that science created something new, so even if it was wrong it was, at the very least, successful.
Progression is progressive, which indicates that at some point it's going to be lacking certain bits of knowledge. Pretending like that lack of knowledge proves the whole of progression wrong is a stupid assumption, and that seems to be what you are basing your Evidence on.

Also, from the genetic angle of this discussion: from what I understand certain types of humans(for example the aborigines) had less chromosomes than us? In the case of the abrogines, I believe they had two less chromosomes than us. Does this at all support evolution? Possibly.
If I remember correctly, I believe certain types of retardation occur from manipulation of chromosomes as well. This essentially supports the idea that, "When genes change the organism reflects this". The only missing piece is how the genes change; but clearly they do if retards and aborigines occur. Right?
Also, not every human being is the same. Some have certain defects they are born with brought about by Genetic abnormalities: Again, change from genetic change, and again, substantiated evidence that change happens.
How does it happen, i wonder? From what I understand the organism is constantly creating new biological material from the food it eats(which is why they say we've become completely new people every seven years or so), hence the saying you are what you eat. That's the primary reason we eat, sustanance and creation. Some forms of illness(cancer) are a result of poor nutrition because the body no longer has the proper building blocks to restore it's biological material that, while created daily, also dies daily. So essentially, if the intake of the organism was incomplete, or over complete, or had some kind of extra building block the body couldn't use(which becomes what is known as a "Free radical") the possibility for an unexplained and unknowable change becomes possible, possibly in the genetic material used to create new life?
Also, anything foreign to the body could possibly also induce the same changes. New makes new? Maybe.
I'm not really supporting any of the above as evidence, it was just kind of an idea.

kahljorn

Dec 6th, 2005, 04:49 PM

"Also, anything foreign to the body could possibly also induce the same changes. New makes new? Maybe."

Adding to that; if an organism was at first built to survive off of certain chemicals or gases or molecules, like oxygen and carbon dioxide, what would the long term exposure to something it's not built to handle cause? Obviously, it has to have some sort of effect, if the body is exposed to anything it has to react, no matter what it is. Something as simple as being born at the bottom of the sea next to a volcanic vent would likely be used to high water pressure, while surfacing would create a different atmosphere entirely, exposing them to sunlight and possibly other chemicals/gases.
Again, the body HAS to react to these effects, whether it's a simple matter of drowning or being crushed by high pressure, or by being poisoned as a result of exposure to foreign gases and chemicals.
Anyway, go with what i said before off of shit like that. Different chemicals and gases, different minerals, yada yada, body using them for bodily material, yada yada stuff happening and stuff. Eatting foods it's not supposed to, stuff. stuff. yea.

Preechr

Dec 6th, 2005, 05:01 PM

Ziggy, I waited way to long to post a reply to your first comment, but my post probably is still a decent response to your second (other than I'd probably have remarked on your hostility again...)

Kal, maybe it was my example or the way I said it that made it seem ridiculous... It's a valid argument in the discussion.

kahljorn

Dec 6th, 2005, 05:03 PM

"So from a genetic perspective, none of the individual organisms can have a 'self-interest' opposed to the 'interests' of the hive. A lion on the other hand doesn't share as many genes with some other lions offspring as he would his own, so he's ok with killing other lions and their offspring if it will help him have more succesful offspring. "

By the way, I forgot to mention this before but now I remember: This makes evolutionary sense in MANY angles. Not just what you were saying, but also the idea that the possibility for evolution has become more probable with the occurance of such varied genes. That indicates some kind of concept beyond just empty evolutionary processing, but some kind of conceptual evolution in which the modes themselves change to be more productive.
I can't exactly pinpoint what I'm trying to say, something about how evolution has occured in such a way that it has made itself(evolution) stronger and more likely.

kahljorn

Dec 6th, 2005, 05:05 PM

"Kal, maybe it was my example or the way I said it that made it seem ridiculous... It's a valid argument in the discussion."

No, it was the idea that it's irreducibly complex because it's small.

Preechr

Dec 6th, 2005, 05:07 PM

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

Here's something to read. I'm not a big fan of Behe, but he's had a lot of evolutionists working very hard to refute many of his assertions. Generally, they do so by going just a bit further than calling him a Jesus-freak.

kahljorn

Dec 6th, 2005, 05:12 PM

What about cancer, though? That's a mutated cell which implies parts are missing or distorted, but it still works, just in a different fashion.

I get the idea of it, though, that if it were to evolve into what it is today, at some point it would've had to have been missing some of what it has now, and must've been functional to some degree. I didn't get that at first, my mistake.

However, evolution is complex. Consider it like this:
Perhaps before the cell had different parts, and gradually added different ones on, or the parts themselves changed or upgraded. Which means, through some kind of process of the exchange of various parts, it became what it is today. Which means 70 billion years ago it could've had completely different parts, but through a process it adopted what it has today. Which definitley allows for the possibility of a less complex cell, even missing some or all of the parts it has today.

Emu

Dec 6th, 2005, 05:21 PM

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

Criticism of Behe's "Box."

kahljorn

Dec 6th, 2005, 05:41 PM

Yea, that puzzle took me like three seconds to crack, and I'm not even a scientist. ;/

Preechr

Dec 6th, 2005, 05:44 PM

There's TONS of that lying around. I kinda figured that kal might read through some new stuff before he looked up the readily available criticisms of it.

As I've said, the argument is very interesting. I was reluctant to post any links to anything because googling any of it finds much more criticisms of it then it does support.

That sort of excuses my skepticism, though, doesn't it? Certainly Behe has caused a lot of thought to be put into evolutionism that might not have been added were it not for his skepticism. His ideas were obviously valid enough at one point to have warranted the attention of many, many smart guys hostile to his position.

I said it before, I'm neither for creationism or evolutionism nor ID. I look at what comes out of all the little black boxes. I'm an ethicist, if anything.... maybe a moralist. I could give two shits about where we come from to be honest. I have my own beliefs, but were they proven wrong my life would not change. My remarks concern the behavior of the parties involved. My first post here regarded the arrogant way in which ID proponents were automatically dismissed as ignorant, bible-thumping cave luddites, but what pissed me off is how the method used was to change their position and then deride it.

If I have a dog in this fight at all, it's only that I believe the philosophical ramifications of Darwinism as a pseudo-religion are upsetting on a societal level. I also wanted to stir up enough shit to drag this thread out a few pages so Kevin would say, "Hey, this was a fun topic! Maybe I should have stickied it like I originally thought instead of questioning my judgement..."

ziggytrix

Dec 6th, 2005, 06:17 PM

Does my contention ring true at all to you that the Goliath of Science, based in actual facts, shouldn't be still going toe to toe with the David of Religion on this? The biggest black eye that evolutionism has is that it has yet to find a way to silence it's critics that are based in ignorance and superstitious ideas.

How hard is it to write a book? How easy is it to burn a book because you don't like what's written in it? How hard is it to prove that my invisible buddy up in space didn't make everything that exists 50 years ago, and since my invisible buddy is also omnipotent, and a bit of an asshole, he made everything to look just as if it had a history before that 50 years, even going so far as to create MEMORIES in every living being? I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE MY INVISIBLE ASSHOLE GOD DID NOT DO THIS!

As long as the bulk of the critics' loudest complaint is "WELL IT AINT IN *MY* BIBLE" - they'll never be silenced in a society with freedom of religion. And I don't really mind that either, as long as I'm free to think they're retarded fuckfaces. :)

nobody's really running around doubting the Big Bang, planet orbits, black holes, dinosaurs, cloning, genetics or just about anything else regarded as scientific fact. Isn't that odd?

What? I doubt most Creationists believe in the Big Bang. Literal creationists don't believe in dinosaurs either - I had a teacher in my private school days who said the Devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to trick us. I'm not fucking kidding. Church of Christ, baby. If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't Godly.

But anyone willing to make room for things not explicitly stated in Genesis should have no more trouble reconciling evolution than the Big Bang with their faith. I had another teacher at this same school who had no problem teaching evolution in Biology. Cuz he figured what difference did it make to his faith if perhaps God CREATED evolution? Wowzers, there's a chicken vs. egg argument!

The main dig here, and this is something that a lot of people don't understand, is that evolution/common descent isn't 100% certain fact. It never can be. BUT should there be EVIDENCE to support an alternative theory, and to refute common descent, the principes of scientific review allow a mechanism to accept this new evidence, and change science itself. This is something Religion has a hard time doing. Rather than change, the zealot will suppress new findings. This can be true of individual scientists, who are perhaps vain regarding their own theories, but in general new evidence is quickly assimilated by the scientific community.

In the end though, there will ALWAYS be people who look to religion to explain the things they don't understand. There will even be people who make a religion of science, and I am certainly NOT advocating that behavior. If you wish to learn, then educate yourself. If you wish to be persuaded through demagoguery and fallacious syllogisms, by all means, latch onto the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design. Or pick some third wacky libertarian origin theory if it makes you happy.

I really don't give a fuck what you wish to think. But it's a fun bit of distraction, innit?

Emu

Dec 6th, 2005, 06:34 PM

nobody's really running around doubting the Big Bang, planet orbits, black holes, dinosaurs, cloning, genetics or just about anything else regarded as scientific fact. Isn't that odd?

Are you joking? Tons of people doubt those things. The Big Bang, cloning and black holes in particular.

By the way, there's no such thing as a scientific fact. Science can never establish facts. Science can gather evidence for an assertion whose truth value approaches 1, but can never reach it. At least, not through science.

kahljorn

Dec 6th, 2005, 06:36 PM

"I kinda figured that kal might read through some new stuff before he looked up the readily available criticisms of it. "

I didn't look up the criticisms of it, I figured that out on my own. The only criticism I read was the one Emu posted which was why I thought it was funny that it agreed with me.

It isn't exactly a stretch to figure out that things don't neccessarily magically become the way they are(unless you a creationist, which seems to be exactly what that guy is and all of his theories seem to revolve around it, even when it's about disproving evolution he seems to think they magically came into being the way they are), and the idea that smart people would get stuck on something so obvious as that is rather ridiculous.

"As I've said, the argument is very interesting."

It was interesting, and it made sense. It just doesn't work the way he says it does, and anybody who studies (or uses their brain)evolution at all would know that. Evolution isn't about one day poof, magically we're humans. It was a slow process of gradual changes that took a very long time. That's the PREMISE, and exactly what "Irreducible complexity" is attempting to refute, NOT that if you ripped out your heart you wouldn't be able to live anymore. Everybody knows that.
The fact that he completely ignored that shows exactly how stupid he was, and exactly how well he didn't understand evolution. He was basically putting his ideas of the universe onto evolution, which I personally find hilarious. He treated evolution like it was creationism. Projection?

Preechr

Dec 7th, 2005, 01:04 PM

I didn't look up the criticisms of it, I figured that out on my own...

Wow. Man, they sure could use your help then, down there at those science places. This is all still pretty hotly debated by really, really smart guys in white coats. Maybe you have some sort of gift, like a science-Superman, or Rainman or something like that.

You shouldn't keep that kind of super deductive talent bottled up here on the internet, wasted on us normal people. Use what God (or Gaiea or whatever) gave you for the good of mankind!

kahljorn

Dec 7th, 2005, 01:22 PM

Don't be jealous just because it stumped your stupid ass, stumpy mc fuckface. I just have the common sense to realize the distinction between evolution and creation, enough to realize that if you ripped your heart out you would die. "But if you took the spring out of the mousetrap it wouldn't work anymore. Clearly, this indicates that evolution must be wrong." If that was the case, the fact that we can die would prove that evolution is wrong, and somehow I have a feeling that darwin knew that death occured. In fact, I think it probably had a little something to do with his theory.

Common sense doesn't necessarily equate to being a genius.

evÂ·oÂ·luÂ·tion
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

Gradual, not instantaneous :rolleyes Nothing like knowing what a word means to get you through the day.

Preechr

Dec 7th, 2005, 04:21 PM

Dude, you are, like, totally WAY over my head on this. I never knew evolution had an actual DEFINITION! Like, whoa. Heavy.

I still say you need to e-mail those M.I.T. guys that are wrestling with this stuff every day and let them know about this definition you found.

Emu

Dec 7th, 2005, 04:31 PM

I wonder if there's a genetic reason for how typical it is that in arguments about evolution someone inevitably breaks down into weak sarcasm.

kahljorn

Dec 7th, 2005, 04:33 PM

You mean there's smart people investigating death by organ removal? What is that, some branch of anatomy or something?
Man we sure are behind cause like I remember back in the day when they knew bleeding to death would kill someone or stabbing them instomach or heart or kidneys or liver or where ever man it's funny how the times work sometimes you feel like you traveled to the future into the middle of a circus full of gigantic walking brains and hearts that have evolved past irreducible complexity and you know when children are born their organs rip out of their body and begin a legacy of brutality starting with some kind of strange anatomical masturbation you know what i mean but then there's these other times where you just feel like a caveman trying to eat a moistened rock and you have to wonder exactly what is god thinking making life such a double entendre like that i mean come on doesn't he know how to color inside the lines he invented the big mac but forgot to add pickles and that's what the world is like it's horrible and you know what im not taking it anymore i think i will take this to MIT that way they can you know fix things by studing them and posting information about it on the message board and when they finally discover the truth on the message board they can spread it to other message boards in true memotic form just like dawkins would have done isn't that right don't you agree and the world will be a better place all thanks to the internet and people who post messages on it

Anybody ever noticed how dawkins and darwin are kind of similar names? It's obviously a conspiracy of the highest order.

KevinTheOmnivore

Dec 7th, 2005, 04:41 PM

I wonder if there's a genetic reason for how typical it is that in arguments about evolution someone inevitably breaks down into weak sarcasm.

No, it proves that there is a God, and that he's terribly amused.

CaptainBubba

Dec 8th, 2005, 12:49 AM

Evolution arguments always break down because people who don't accept evolution are the same people who would honestly argue to you that the earth is flat BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN IN SPACE HOW CAN YOU PROVE IT, IT IS STILL HOTLY DEBATED BY PEOPLE I SWEAR.

Evolution is accepted by all respected scientists as far as I know. Honestly Preechr you havent made any argument refuting anything evolution suggests. The burden of proof is upon evolution's supporters, but that doesn't mean when there is loads of proof and evidence suggesting it you can go "YEA WHATEVER I AINT SEEN NOTHIN" and expect people to not get hostile with your stupidity.

I could make a really convoluted thread about how you can never convince me that gravity exists but you could always throw me off a fucking mountain, just like I could bring a petri dish of bacteria and expose it to some toxin and watch the remaining bacteria reproduce OMG EVOLUTION.

If your deal is just the specific anthropological aspects of evolution then aww poor baby you are a fucking monkey boohoo.

Big Papa Goat

Dec 8th, 2005, 02:02 AM

ya but what about that bacteiral flagella, that points to God wanting bacteria to have flagella in an infinite plan of divine wisdom that is incredibly complex and impossible to know, but flagella are definitely a part of it.

also, ribosomes, I'm pretty sure those are too complicated to have happened without something desiging them.

I mean think abotu it, if you saw a watch, you'd assume a watchmaker made it, so he could tell time.

So, if you see an organism, you should assume some intelligent entity designed it, and all other organisms, with some purpose in mind that we'll never be able to understand because its so complex and because He's so complex.

I mean really, it's obvious that complexity only comes from carefully laid out plans. Kind of like language, how early linguists figured out the best and most unique and diverse ways of talking so that thousands of years later, people would be able to write beautiful poems.

Kind of like society too, the way John Locke figured about how humans could best organize themself according to reasonable principles, and how we all decided that was better than living as isolated individuals. Remember back when we did that? Remember when we all figured out a plan for a diverse, complex society? Good thing we came up with that plan, so we could have all the beautiful diversity we have today.

Now we jsut gotta make sure the jews don't ruin it all >:

kahljorn

Dec 8th, 2005, 10:49 AM

"So, if you see an organism, you should assume some intelligent entity designed it, and all other organisms, with some purpose in mind that we'll never be able to understand because its so complex and because He's so complex. "

So if you see a plant growing you assume "the green man" or a dryad or something grew it instead of sun, water and air?

Emu

Dec 8th, 2005, 11:13 AM

I believe in dryads. >:

kahljorn

Dec 8th, 2005, 12:27 PM

Well, sorry to offend your gay pagan religion. :)

Big Papa Goat

Dec 9th, 2005, 02:36 AM

the dryad put the trees there so I could write a poem about how people fail to see the forest for the trees

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 10:07 AM

Bubba, I don't think I want to have another one of those arguments with you where you don't actually read what I write.

In fact, I think I've made my position pretty clear on this, so there's no need to apply anymore effort.

I think I'll go sit on the porch of my trailer, chew some tobacco and pray to Jesus while shooting at rats and watching pit bulls fuck.

CaptainBubba

Dec 9th, 2005, 10:09 AM

:eek

CaptainBubba

Dec 9th, 2005, 10:16 AM

Wait you believe in Jesus?

Anyway I figure I have again been accused of poor debating on this forum so I should use my end all trump card and copy your style as to avoid complaints!

Look, I'm tired of looking up sources on evolution and we all know its there ok. Heres one www.discovery.com. Its pretty long winded sorry but it makes a good point.

I mean, I know both sides have a good argument and stuff but, well, I'm right sorry.

Ok Ill be a straight shooter. The reason I believe in Evolution is mostly because of the way how when something is believed in science nobody every challenges it ever again because the scientific comunity prides itself on never making mistakes. Religion does that all the time and it really pisses me off how they are constsantly using the religious method to systematically imporve their view of the world and its components.

I mean cmon.

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 10:45 AM

Wait you believe in Jesus?

Jesus is a figment of the human imagination, and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion we are having about Richard Dawson. You suck. You lose. Sorry. Goodbye. You are the weakest link. I am like Brad Pitt in Troy where he takes that guy out right there in the first scene. Bam. I rock.

Anyway I figure I have again been accused of poor debating on this forum so I should use my end all trump card and copy your style as to avoid complaints!

You, your ability to "figure" anything, this forum, trump cards and my style are illusions based in human self-aggrandizement. Obviously this discussion is way over your head, or maybe you are are a retard. If you have complaints, which is a word you used, then they should be about your faulty logic and your improper grammar. Kneel before Zod, mortal.

Look, I'm tired of looking up sources on evolution and we all know its there ok. Heres one www.discovery.com. Its pretty long winded sorry but it makes a good point.

Your argument makes no sense whatever. Are you here just to waste my valuable time? Why are you making me respond over and over to sheer nonsense? Why do you continually refuse to concede to my primacy over everything and everyone? I am Captain Bubba! Where is your Jesus now, Bitch?! Where is he now?!

I mean, I know both sides have a good argument and stuff but, well, I'm right sorry.

Really I understand why its important to you to believe there is purpose to your existence and everything. All I can say is I'm sorry. In truth its not that bad. If you just don't think about it, life can be fun. Most philosophical truths are like that.

kahljorn

Dec 9th, 2005, 11:05 AM

I like how his entire side of the argument lead up to a theory that took about the time it did to type a reply out to find gigantic faults in. Why do people feel compelled to post evidence that don't prove anything, while excusing other evidences entirely without any real reasoning. See below for more details in a nearly chronological order involving his actual thought proccesses, reasonably based on his tangible actions.

"Well the other side of the argument says this, however it's not true. It's just not true. I can't tell you how many times I've had conversations about this and said it's not true... well, it's not so much that it's not true, I just want to challenge the scientific community so they'll be a little more responsible. I mean, right now they teach evolution in our schools and it hasn't even been proven yet!!! I WONT BELIEVE TILL I METAMORPHHESISH. Well, anyway, after that finale I present another more intellectual one, not only granting me the secret power of ethics but also making me better than you. What about this guy? He stumps alot of scientists.--- Hey wait, maybe I shouldn't insert this into a conversation that prior to this I demanded proofs that prove. I mean, should I really hold steadfast with my values? Am I making a difference here? What am I doing??? I better start acting like an arrogant asshole so nobody realizes how stupid I am for even believing that shit would be relevant in any case, nonetheless by my own standards.'---preech on :rolleyes

And to imagine I gave him a conscience capable of realizing it's own actions. What a kind soul I am.

ziggytrix

Dec 9th, 2005, 11:19 AM

The both of you need a time out. Intolerably high levels of sarcasm have rendered the comprehensibility of your posts virtually nil.

When ID puts forth some physical evidence and research, and quits offering up logic puzzles, we can call it a science. Until such time, it is a fallacy-laden philosophy at best, and a vague pseudoscience pushing an agenda at worst.

Evolution does not mean there is no God. It does not mean there is no purpose to existence. Real science does not ask those questions, and only a fool looks to science to answer those questions.

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 11:46 AM

Yet it's used for that purpose. Guess the world is full of fools, huh?

Kal, stop. You've reduced my argument down to something it never was, and you're waiting on me to respond to that. I brought up irreducible compexity as a point to discuss in order to keep the discussion going a bit. As ziggy sort of indicated, it's an interesting logic puzzle. The discussion is not as simple for most folks as: "Wow, that's obviously wrong." Given that your method of explaining your position further has pretty much been: "You cannot remove someone's heart, so you're stupid," I'm confident you never really had a grasp of the not-so-subtle nuances of the discussion.

You need a summary? Fine. There's tons of discussion and controversy on evolution. To pretend that anyone that is skeptical is a Jesus-freak that's just too dumb to get it is disingenuous and furthers the discussion not one bit. I like discussing things. You guys like mocking things. It's two different things.

I suppose my problem was with vain mockery. I suppose that makes me the idiot for having that problem here, right?

Emu

Dec 9th, 2005, 11:49 AM

Yet it's used for that purpose. Guess the world is full of fools, huh?

Who's doing that, exactly?

CaptainBubba

Dec 9th, 2005, 01:17 PM

Preechr I don't think anyone on this forum has a problem with being reasonably skeptical with any aspect of science. Science is so respected because it depends on people being skeptical and challenging previously believed ideas.

What makes people think you are a jesus freak is that you don't just say you are skeptical of it. You seem like you genuinely have a disdain for anyone who believes it. Being skeptical doesnt mean you act like everything is wrong. It means you reserve your complete trust in something and maintain doubt. Evolution is as true as the theory of gravity and the conservation of matter/energy but I doubt you would be so worked up over a thread debating either of those scientific "facts".

And posting stuff from another thread in a completely unrelated and out of context way toooootally embarased me and made me look sooo stupid man good show you shouldve been in the mock wars.

kahljorn

Dec 9th, 2005, 03:34 PM

"I brought up irreducible compexity as a point to discuss in order to keep the discussion going a bit."

It worked, and now you're bitching about it?

"As ziggy sort of indicated, it's an interesting logic puzzle."

Um, sure. So interesting it took five minutes to figure out, which coincidentally is about how long it took for me to see your post and type a response...

""You cannot remove someone's heart, so you're stupid,""

On behe's webpage his explaination for irreducible complexity is as follows: There's a mousetrap, it has three pieces. If you take out any of those three pieces, the mousetrap will no longer work. This proves evolution wrong. In the human body, there's alot of pieces, but a few primary ones. If you take out one of the primary pieces, the human body will no longer work. This proves evolution wrong.
Obviously I was using the exact same logical model to make it look stupid. Essentially i was 'mocking' it, mimicing it, in a way that looked blatantly stupid to show how blatantly stupid the initial claim is. "This wouldn't work if you remove this" "This wouldn't work if you remove this", same syntax, same solution just a differing response (from you) because it's something accepted in everyday life as true, hence my usage of it. All you've really done with your response is to satisfy exactly what i was trying to point out. It's like you work on my team or something.
That wasn't my argument against Behe anyway, you know what it was and it seemed people have agreed with it before, I don't really need to say anything more on that particular topic-- you just need to shield your eyes and pretend nothing happened. So untwist your panties and quit picking out bullshit delusions to throw my way-- they don't work.

Big Papa Goat

Dec 9th, 2005, 04:08 PM

that argument doesn't work because its based on criticizing christians, but I'm not a christian

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 06:07 PM

I probably should have spent more time talking with you in this thread. Would've been more fun. I'm reading back through to see how and why I lost my patience, and if I ignore kahljorn's posts and avoid running off to read ziggy's website, I notice that your tangent about Richard Dawson wasn't so off topic. I think I got back into the thread wrong.

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 06:10 PM

My point in this thread is NOT to convince any of you that God created the world or that He or She exists or that you should send me money so that I can finish my church on the Moon. My point is that evolutionism SEEMS to be as much a leap of faith as is creationism, and I'm asking for help from those of you who are obviously intellligent enough to have approached this subject at one point as skeptics and were convinced by facts. What's so wrong with asking for summarized data? This has been acknowledged as FACT for 50 years now by the scientific community at large. What's with the "Trust me?" Doesn't that seem odd to you guys?

Let me be clear that I have not one time posted that I believe creationism or intelligent design to be superior to evolutionism. I have consistently maintained that they are, or at least appear to be, on equal footing as they all require the belief in something that I cannot see. Because creationism and intelligent design both stem from Theology, I'm fine with that. I cannot forgive science for similar behavior, however. Evolutionists NEED to sit down and win this fight concretely or else they need to admit that they cannot and concede that any other theories are equally possible.

For me, and this is why I'm actually interested in this debate at all, I see this as a moral issue. There are very specific ramifications for the different types of thought produced within society from the basis of each of these theories, and I have my preferences. I am looking at this debate from a third person point of view, not as one invested in either side. When I see those purporting to be men of science, facts and logic behaving just as petulantly and suspiciously as any other mystic, I question it.

kahljorn

Dec 9th, 2005, 06:59 PM

granting me the secret power of ethics

ziggytrix

Dec 9th, 2005, 07:12 PM

I have consistently maintained that they are, or at least appear to be, on equal footing as they all require the belief in something that I cannot see.

There is a fricken mountain of research and study on evolution. There are thousands of books and websites which can give you summaries, or you can delve into the subject and make your own decision. The subject itself is so broad that parts have been rejected, refined, or outright changed, and you could probably have a pretty interesting debate between champions of different types of evolution.

You can't see if you AREN'T LOOKING.

NO ONE is saying "trust me" from the scientific side of this. I question your contention that anyone is. The theory of evolution at it simplest is just that "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, results in the development of new species."

Either it happens or it doesn't. You asked for evidence, I point at evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution). You say that's not evidence! I get annoyed. You say I'm acting like a petulant mystic. I decide I've put way too much effort into talking to you.

Sethomas

Dec 9th, 2005, 07:22 PM

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 07:23 PM

I did not call you a mystic... and the website I was talking about was the other one, which wasn't as helpful.

I honestly left out the main part of that self-quote where I used "Trust me" just so I wouldn't piss you off again.

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 07:34 PM

I'm not going to read the previous pages to find out, but what exactly is Preechr's substitution for evolution? The evolution debate tends to dichotomize between science and scripture, and he's rejecting both. So, really, what's your deal, Preechr?

Jesus.

Ok. I posted that last bit with the goal of not trying to explain myself one last time. Thanks, Seth.

I feel the creationism vs ID debate is a valid discussion to have.

It pisses me off to see otherwise intelligent folks treating the discussion as always-right scientists vs. inbred hicks.

Throughout my spotty interest in the debate, as I am not a christian nor a parent nor a person that's all that concerned in any way in a direct sense, I have seen the ID folks punch some pretty good holes at least in some of the examples that evolutionists have used, a good example being the Miller experiment.

My direct interest in the debate comes from the point of view that those that treat science as a religion (not all science fans do this, but it is my contention that many folks do) use the admittedly flawed anti-religion aspect of the evolution debate in addition to similar functions of ecological science, some parts of cosmology, psychology and politics (as well as many other parts of modern culture) to create a dysfunctional alternate reality, a religion, for themselves that let's them live entirely free of any sort of moral ties to any of the rest of us.

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 07:35 PM

Oh, and I thought I might be able to discuss that sort of stuff here.

Big Papa Goat

Dec 9th, 2005, 07:37 PM

isn't the basic argument for intelligent design the evidence for 'planning' because life is too compex to arise naturally?
I think I said some sarcastic off topic stuff about that earlier, but let me explicitly say now, that complexity and diversity arises spontaneously, not from planning. Thats whats so stupid about that fukin watchmaker analogy. A watch is there to tell time. Thats the purpose, everything about a watch can be traced back to the way the watchmaker wanted it to tell time. If you could point to the same kind of intention and purpose in an organism, then you'd be saying something. Complexity has never been a hallmark of planning, purpose has. Biology has complexity, not purpose.

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 07:47 PM

Christians obviously believe that life has a purpose. I tend to agree with them on that, NOT THAT I AM A CHRISTIAN.

I'm used to pissing off religious people. I'm new to pissing off those that are going to Hell. If life has a purpose, then it's creator was necessarily looking for something it did not already have, creating to fulfill that goal. A goal oriented creator is imperfect or at best, incomplete.

Big Papa Goat

Dec 9th, 2005, 07:47 PM

Big Papa Goat

Dec 9th, 2005, 07:50 PM

Christians and other people obviously believe life has a purpose, but you might notice that the meaning of life is a remarkably difficult thing to define.
The evolutionary 'prediction' for the purpose of life is self-preservation and propogation, and if you look at how much effort every organism puts into surviving and reproducing, it seems to have some explanatory power.

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 07:52 PM

In addition, one of the items I latched onto in the ID formulary was the idea that the various cogs and wheels in the watch are as simply designed as they could be to allow the diversity of life we enjoy. Make minute changes to something like the pull of gravity, a weak force, and the window closes.

Look at it backwards. I think they're saying that the universe functions like a watch, so it must have a purpose.

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 07:55 PM

My purpose for life is to be happy. That's a remarkably difficult thing to do, though, obviously, self-preservation is a big part of that.

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 08:18 PM

think about languages. language was never planned, and it's complex and diverse. society was never planned either. Am I mistaken to think that you're pro-market, anti-communist? Because then you're probably aware that communist, command economies are planned, and they tend to have a single purpose, and lack diversity or complexity. Market economies have diversity, because they arise from the spontaneous interaction of constituent elements. Kind of like evolution.

And I know you won't tell me that the plan the intelligent entity came up with is so complex that it just approximates spontaneity in all observable ways, and that the purpose He had in mind in designing everything is so infinitely complex that it can't be observed or known either.

I know you're not going to say anything like that, cus thats what some redneck would say.

You may say that it's pretty dumb to base that whole theory seemingly only on human institutions like market and command economies. Seems pretty petty, when talking about such universal issues to use such insignificant examples. Except, supposing there isn't an intelligent design to the entire universe, human beings are in fact the only things to ever intelligently plan things. So the only examples we can reliably have for what planned systems look like have to come from systems we've come up with ourselves.

I missed this one.

Yep. Pro-liberty. I believe all of our decisions are self-interested, whether in a destructive way or not. It's the combination of these decisions that make society and culture. I believe the goal of the individual life is happiness, a big word. Communism as a government style is mass self-destruction. Capitalism as a government style is also self-destructive. "Free-markets" are a form of human interaction, and the concept emulates natural activity. We interact with one another naturally using an intelligent mixture of both types of transaction. Good government should emulate natural activity.

A society which will endure, a formal example of this does not yet exist, will be based on the characteristics of the sort of morality and ethical considerations found in the life of a happy individual. Keep in mind, I have a narrow view of happiness which does not include happy-crazy or happy-cruel. I'm hoping to avoid a big tangent on that, but I'm not too optimistic on that.

derrida

Dec 9th, 2005, 09:02 PM

Preechr, why assume that the Neo-darwinian model is going to be as simple an explanation as "this shit was put here by an agent" (which, I guess isn't even unique to ID as evidenced by the tendency of evolutionary models to personify genes) (and why assume that either has any bearing whatsoever on normative truths?)

Yeah, the fact that only a very small number of the organisms in history ever became fossils fucks with the hope that any deductive truths confirming the abiotic generation of life on this particular planet are ever going to be found. Furthermore, the scale of time we are talking about completely motherfucking dwarfs any frame of reference most normal folk have ever needed to use. Irreducibility is an intuition for which no formal proof has been derived, not even by it's proponent Dembski, a mathematician. Is there not a calculable possibility that an amoeba might undergo a mutation that leaves it's DNA indistinguishable from that of your own? Genetics says so.

The thing about inductive arguments is that, while essentially probabilistic, they can be evaluated and classed as "strong" or "weak."

Preechr

Dec 9th, 2005, 09:30 PM

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.

That's from Origin. That's probably why irreducible Complexity became an issue to creationists at all; the idea being that the argument could be won using the framework set out by the Devil himself...

Big Papa Goat

Dec 9th, 2005, 10:31 PM

My direct interest in the debate comes from the point of view that those that treat science as a religion (not all science fans do this, but it is my contention that many folks do) use the admittedly flawed anti-religion aspect of the evolution debate in addition to similar functions of ecological science, some parts of cosmology, psychology and politics (as well as many other parts of modern culture) to create a dysfunctional alternate reality, a religion, for themselves that let's them live entirely free of any sort of moral ties to any of the rest of us.

As long as the topic of motives for supporting different positions is there, I think it's worthwhile to point out that most, certainly many of the most important political theorists that work from an evolutionary or biological perspective are conservatives. The big book of biopolitics was actually written by a student of Strauss. James Wilson wrote a fairly prominent book The Moral Sense that was at least in part about the biological basis of moral sentiments, and it was explicitly about refuting amoral philosophy on the basis of evidence for natural human moral senses.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it would seem the last time evolution was ever seriously used to undermine morality was with social darwinism, and that was something like a hundred years ago, and is explicitly rejected by modern theorists.

A society which will endure, a formal example of this does not yet exist, will be based on the characteristics of the sort of morality and ethical considerations found in the life of a happy individual

Well, I guess we'll just have to get the philosopher kings in power to see that happen.

Didn't Plato conclude that such a government would never actually happen? Wasn't it pretty much entirely allegorical anyway? In any case, I guess the Republic would be too off tangent.

My purpose for life is to be happy. That's a remarkably difficult thing to do, though, obviously, self-preservation is a big part of that.

Without getting too much into what happiness is, a more pressing question regarding such a position in the context of this debate is how does the your own purpose of happiness explain the purpose of the entire biosphere, which is really what an intelligent design theory would have to state.

derrida

Dec 9th, 2005, 10:47 PM

Big Papa Goat

Dec 9th, 2005, 10:49 PM

I also might point out that Origin of the Species is not the bible of evolution.
Not saying anything about that irreducibility jazz, just pointing it out to certain people who like to call everything a religion.
Which is a faggish thing to do, by the way.

Preechr

Dec 10th, 2005, 12:51 PM

Well, being faggish is a religion.

Preechr

Dec 10th, 2005, 12:55 PM

"Numerous," "slight," and "complex" are all relative terms, right?

I didn't say it was a good basis for argument, just that that's what ID proponents reference when they discuss it.

Big Papa Goat

Dec 10th, 2005, 01:25 PM

Say, have you ever read any of Stanley Fish's work?

Preechr

Dec 10th, 2005, 01:36 PM

As long as the topic of motives for supporting different positions is there, I think it's worthwhile to point out that most, certainly many of the most important political theorists that work from an evolutionary or biological perspective are conservatives. The big book of biopolitics was actually written by a student of Strauss. James Wilson wrote a fairly prominent book The Moral Sense that was at least in part about the biological basis of moral sentiments, and it was explicitly about refuting amoral philosophy on the basis of evidence for natural human moral senses.

I have no more of a Moral Sense than I do a Fashion Sense. Not to make light of something I've never read, but based solely on your description, I'm just not digging that idea too much.

I'm not sure this is a right vs. left argument at all. There are plenty of religious leftists (almost the entire black voting base of the Democratic Party for a considerable example) as well as plenty of atheistic or agnostic conservatives. Of the science/math oriented professionals I've met, I'd be reluctant to say there's any clear pattern to their ideas about God.

Aside from that, I'd venture to say most people don't spend a whole lot of time investigating this argument or questioning common descent. My original impression of the debate wasn't probably too much different than any of yours.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it would seem the last time evolution was ever seriously used to undermine morality was with social darwinism, and that was something like a hundred years ago, and is explicitly rejected by modern theorists.

The reason I started looking at ID vs. evolution critically was because it fits a pattern of behavior that interests me. The common belief in extraterrestrial life fits this pattern, too. We find many different ways to think of ourselves and our actions as meaningless or immaterial. Doing so takes a lot of moral pressure off our every day decisions.

Were we to believe instead that we and our actions were important, that all of the universe was created entirely for the benefit of the few of us lucky enough to exist here on this planet, that our lives were important in a universal sense, that every decision we made carried the weight of universal consequence... Well, that's not the common conception of our existence is it?

Well, I guess we'll just have to get the philosopher kings in power to see that happen.

I'm a libertarian. I don't believe impostion of morality will ever work top down. Authoritarianism, the opposite ideal, only ever succeeds in dictating over disaster.

Didn't Plato conclude that such a government would never actually happen? Wasn't it pretty much entirely allegorical anyway? In any case, I guess the Republic would be too off tangent.

It will never work the way he conceptualized it. Rights, liberties, morality and consequences all originiate from the individual. Governments gain their power from their citizens. We give our rights to government in trade for peace among each other. There is a balance point, however. When we give too much of our responsibilities away to another entity, our citizens become responsible for nothing.

Without getting too much into what happiness is, a more pressing question regarding such a position in the context of this debate is how does the your own purpose of happiness explain the purpose of the entire biosphere, which is really what an intelligent design theory would have to state.

Again, if we are a creation, our creator had a purpose in mind. Had our creator been able to satisfy this need without us, we would not have been necessary. Happiness is liberty, peace and coexistence in perfect balance. Were we all to achieve this state simultaneously, maybe we would complete the design.

I choose happiness because it is the only thing over which we each have individual sovereignity. Happiness is a product of thought, and thought is all we have. As I said though: it's a big word.

derrida

Dec 10th, 2005, 08:15 PM

The reason I started looking at ID vs. evolution critically was because it fits a pattern of behavior that interests me. The common belief in extraterrestrial life fits this pattern, too. We find many different ways to think of ourselves and our actions as meaningless or immaterial. Doing so takes a lot of moral pressure off our every day decisions.

Were we to believe instead that we and our actions were important, that all of the universe was created entirely for the benefit of the few of us lucky enough to exist here on this planet, that our lives were important in a universal sense, that every decision we made carried the weight of universal consequence... Well, that's not the common conception of our existence is it?

It should be a given that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but for fuck's sake, man, no one had more of a hard on for responsibility than motherfucking Sartre, and the two most influential materialists during the 20th century, Marx and Freud, were both arch-moralists.

Now I get it. When you refer to "ID vs. evolution" yaren't talking about the positivist endeavors of a scientific community (and its critics) so much as the masturbatory rants of self-appointed "advocates" commonly streamed over AOL chat rooms. Putting aside whatever, uh, personal reasons you have for attacking this most pressing issue, I have to say that you aren't giving the psyche nearly enough credit. I've known good and bad people, and can't say that the nitty gritty of their personal cosmologies had anything to do with the essential quality of character. The human mind is incredibly facile at inventing justifications for theft and deceit. I'll give you this: usually, the louder someone talks about their precious beliefs, the more ways they manage to fail at achieving any semblance of compassion or honor, thus rendering their professed ideals even more hollow.

Question: of the two groups I mentioned, scientists and masturbators, only one is concerned with absolute truths. Can you guess which?

kahljorn

Dec 12th, 2005, 11:50 AM

"The common belief in extraterrestrial life fits this pattern, too"

Um? I don't know so much that people believe in extraterrestrial life so much as they believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial life( i think believing in your own life kind of makes the belief in other life a logical step) . Same with evolution. It seems alot more likely and alot more logical than anything else. If your argument is that people act on what they assume is correct or more logical are ignorant or whathaveyou, than that's just fine, but I'm sure it's the exact same thing you are doing now.

"I'd venture to say most people don't spend a whole lot of time investigating this argument or questioning common descent."

I don't think they care, and why should they? According to you it's all bullshit (and I use that term loosely) anyway.

"We find many different ways to think of ourselves and our actions as meaningless or immaterial. Doing so takes a lot of moral pressure off our every day decisions. "

I agree, but I don't think the belief in evolution fits this pattern, if anything it supplies the exact opposite. Especially when you start to look at dawkins use of memotics as some type of evolutionary component you can see this pattern.

"Well, that's not the common conception of our existence is it? "

How could it be? Regardless of what consequences our lives have on this little planet, the universe is alot bigger (and existence even bigger) . Lying to yourself isn't going to make anything better-- if anything it creates more problems. The fact of the matter is, our life here is inconsequential to eternity, and it doesn't really matter what we do here because some day it will all be wiped away; whether if it's by God and his Rapture or the Universe collapsing into itself (or the sun turning into a red giant and engulfing the earth) the result will be the same.
Even if you were to argue all that, the universe was still built on nothingness-- that's just something that needs to be accepted by any observer of the universe.
You rely too much on the universe outside of us(for no good reason). The items you stated were all outside of humanity except the first one which I agree with. You need to start thinking more on the here and now (selfishness is a great tool for the selfless and the poor, I think). To some extent maybe what you said is true, however, the effects of things outside of us also have 'universal consequence' which essentially negates our own(like the space outside of us that we can't really breath or survive in for example, or ET life if you want to take it to that length-- there's just too many other influences or POSSIBLE influences, really). I don't know, what you said is pretty much just stupid. Humanity isn't the only force in the universe. Assuming we are God's favorites is rather arrogant. God loves all his children.

How would we be lucky to be here? If anything it's just a natural part of the universe that life exists in certain enviroments. It's just as insignificant as mold appearing on old bread. The only reason to feel "Special" is if God or something like that put us here. Is that what you're turning your argument towards?
In a religious sense that's a horrible way to think. Embracing the devil, are we?

"I choose happiness because it is the only thing over which we each have individual sovereignity."

Maybe in some pure form, sure, but this isn't a pure world. There's alot of unhappy people out there who think all the time. If anything, happiness is a product of unthought.