|
His theory was obvious incomplete, he didnt even knew DNA, and several mecanisms that cells and etc... have that allows them to adapt before he forged it.
This discussion is so lame and a big % of everything being posted is a product of a discussion ignore people against not so ignorant people vs people who really arent ignorant, and almost all of them are not operating on the possibility of conceding ground, everyones here with the truth at the tip of their fingers and write a lot of crap =(
I read all this topic and it makes me bored...
gonna sleep, I hope you can channel this discussion into something a little productive, because right now its leading nowhere.
|
I don't know why there's so much rant about companies not taking the risk of releasing this movie because of a drop in their sales in the long run. I care to disagree. Do you know how much worth is the free advertisement you get from that? All this fanatical christians piqueting in front of the theaters, shouting how wrong this is...
It is a well known fact that dealing with controversial content is bound to attract a lot of attention (Kinsey Reports are great example).
Edit: To the guy above me: Have you ever heard of mr. Mendel? He was living at about the same time as Darwin and he founded genetics (discovered DNA etc.). Darwin stated in his works that there is some element within the living organisms that corresponds with mutation/evolution but did not specify it. Mendel did, but it doesn't make Darwin's theory any less accurate since he wasn't dealing with the specifics, just general stuff.
|
Socrates said : All I know is that I KNOW NOTHING. (I would have prefered him to just say "I THINK I KNOW NOTHING " cause he can't even be sure of that...)
Nothing of what you could see in the universe can be proven as being fundamentaly true. We are just debating things we don't KNOW.
Anyway, I have no religion and I'm agnostic but my animal instinct makes me THINK there are 10000000x more chances for the theory of evolution to be true than for the creationism but both can be true potentially because some things are probably just impossible for human beings to acquire since we have just 5 senses.
One thing I prefer about science is that it's never definite and always trying to advance. Sometimes it can even refute something it had admitted before. All in science is just based on experiments and observations and science is not so stubborn as creationism is.
One thing I don't like about creationism is that it's not evolving (oops sorry for the word). It's a really easy way to think in my opinion : I can't explain the world --> I invent an entity called God and it explains it all. I think those people just think that way because it reassures them and it gives them some markers in their life without any signification.
The fact is you will probably never know the truth.
|
I just took a peek in this thread and my head hurts now because of the ignorance shown by some people. 
|
On September 14 2009 02:36 Dametri wrote:
Wat
Inglourious Basterds barely raises eyebrows but a movie about the life of Darwin is getting people in a tiffy? My country mystifies me sometimes.
it should mystify you always, because its so miraculous in behavior.
|
United States43187 Posts
On September 14 2009 20:24 Manit0u wrote:I don't know why there's so much rant about companies not taking the risk of releasing this movie because of a drop in their sales in the long run. I care to disagree. Do you know how much worth is the free advertisement you get from that? All this fanatical christians piqueting in front of the theaters, shouting how wrong this is... It is a well known fact that dealing with controversial content is bound to attract a lot of attention ( Kinsey Reports are great example). Edit: To the guy above me: Have you ever heard of mr. Mendel? He was living at about the same time as Darwin and he founded genetics (discovered DNA etc.). Darwin stated in his works that there is some element within the living organisms that corresponds with mutation/evolution but did not specify it. Mendel did, but it doesn't make Darwin's theory any less accurate since he wasn't dealing with the specifics, just general stuff.
He didn't discover DNA. He discovered dominant and recessive characteristics and how they were passed on through generations. Again, he lacked the specifics because of inadequate equipment at the time. Also his research has been challenged because his results were too perfect, to the extent that would be statistically unlikely. Although if anything that makes him more impressive imo, if he worked out a theory, tested it and the results were imperfect but he was so sure his theory was right (and it was) that he changed them.
He theorised that by breeding two things with the same recessive trait 1/4 of the progeny would have that trait, 1/4 wouldn't have it (even recessive) and 1/2 would have it as a recessive trait. His results showed him as being 100% right rather than discovering on average he was right.
|
On September 14 2009 18:24 Freyr wrote:
(to HnR)hT, 1tym sort of snuck in there while I was typing)
Evolution does not require consciousness, but it doesn't require lack of it either. Evolution allows for the perpetuation of extraneous phenomena so long as they are not detrimental. Even if we agree that this extra bit of neutral information loosens the evidence for evolution just a bit (again this is all debatable anyway), I don't think it approaches being an argument against evolution, even if we restrict ourselves to discussion of plausibility.
I suppose you might argue that consciousness could interfere with natural selection, but even then this only challenges evolution after the point consciousness arose. As you point out we can't identify consciousness as a third party, so we don't know exactly when this is, but I think most would agree that it didn't happen at least for the first billion years or so of life on Earth.
It's interesting, I was wondering the other day how much modern human life interferes with the concept of natural selection. I think to a significant extent it just involves a different set of criteria for fitness.
Night.
I wonder what those criteria are though. Survival to reproductive age is almost universal in western society today, at least when compared to the situation just a couple of hundred years ago. You might imagine some form of sexual selection taking its place since there is no real threat. However since we are aware that sex leads to offspring and since there are contraceptives and abortion, even if there are characteristics that are generally considered more attractive and even if those characteristics lead to more sex for the individual it doesn't have to lead to more offspring.
I can only think of two things that would give an 'obvious' evolutionary advantage today. Genes that make their hosts want to maximize their number of offspring rather than maximize sex. And possibly genes that make us want to teach and emphasize the same values to our children.
It might just be that the the difference in cultural influences on society over long periods of time is a force much greater than that of evolution. Maybe the evolutionary pressure on us is too small and/or changes too often to amount to anything.
|
On September 14 2009 14:46 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 14:35 Railxp wrote:Consciousness/morality might not actually be that incompatible with mechanical biology view of life: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,763,n,n(if you meant consciousness in terms of self awareness/sentience, then this article might not be relevant) \ ---- Pet Peeve: Please do not confuse Intelligent Design theory with the Christian God, sometimes I wish there was an actual name for the Christian Creator so there would be no confusion between god and God and lazy people who don't bother to capitalize on internet forums. Because i know people who believe in a god, go to sunday church, believe in the morals preached by the priest, but when questioned closely will reject most of the bible. Sorry but in that case you are a theist, and not a Christian. /rant Imagine this thought experiment. You are not human or even a living thing but a very advanced and smart robot who studies terrestrial life from afar. You come up with the Darwinian theory of evolution that explains how life arose and how it works. In this case, would you have ANY reason to believe that living things have something called "sentience"? No, you would apply the principle of Occam's Razor and conclude that living things are mindless zombies whose behavior, however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic imperatives. If you are going to reply to this, first make sure you understand what I am saying.
I know this is late, but still...
I think in order for your argument to hold you need to define sentience in some really specific way (morphologically probably.)
Because, if by sentience you mean awareness of one's existence, then Occam's Razor isn't applicable. Awareness of one's existence, although isn't necessary does make self-preservation a lot easier. You can say that it's a pretty complicated ability (?lol I don't know what to call it) but saying that Occam's Razor is applicable to this case, is pretty much like arguing that it's easier to write Programs in assembly than it is in C++.
Yes, you don't really need classes, or object-oriented programming at all to write any program, but it is in fact more complicated to do it without these "complicated constructs."
This argument is especially viable when discussing evolution, because it occurs gradually, and constantly reuses old "code."
I think if the robot understands this logic, and it has some kind of scientific tendencies hard-coded (such as to generalize explanations of phenomena and whatnot.) It would settle on some type of "consciousness" (probably the most efficient one,) even if mechanically it's not completely the same as ours.
|
Well, this IS the country where "The History Channel" aires 50% religious programming. What do you expect? A nation of willfully ignorant Fox News fans certainly isn't interested in science.
|
On September 14 2009 03:29 Caller wrote:
im ashamed that my political beliefs coincide with some of these people
The fact that "these people" are so willing to place a cultural/political agenda over a stunningly thorough body of scientific evidence and so many well-reasoned arguments should make you question the validity of the beliefs you share with them.
|
On September 15 2009 01:25 Louder wrote:
Well, this IS the country where "The History Channel" aires 50% religious programming. What do you expect? A nation of willfully ignorant Fox News fans certainly isn't interested in science.
dont forget about the mayan calendar and Mega Disasters!
(shh dont tell anybody theres like a 0.000000001% chance of any of the megadisasters happening in their lifetime)
|
As I have said before if you want a clear and concise picture of the development of evolutionary theory as well as many other biological concepts/theories check out "The Growth of Biological Thought" by Ernst Mayr. Its long but its well worth it and very good.
|
On September 14 2009 18:21 1tym wrote:
I won't go into the debate, but how is my definition incorrect? You are the one who needs education on this matter.
Natural selection is {quote}* 'the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population.'
If a new species is to have new features, this require new variations. In the modern version of Darwin’s theory, these come from DNA mutations.
The rate of mutation is central to evolution. Mutations are required for adaptation, and most mutations with phenotypic effects are harmful. hence why they're eliminated through natural selection.
Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities. If you calculate this, one in 107 x 107, or 1014. A hundred trillion. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion. What would you get for 4 mutations? 5?
I used the car engine example not to draw any comparison to reproduction, but merely to demonstrate the complexity of the composition involved.
* I changed the brackets to braces in order to have a nice quote tag.
I can give you that I missread your post but however you failed to mention that enviromental changes is a strong force that drives natural selection amongst other. Mutatations are not requried (dependent on definition on mutation I suppose).
Also most mutations are believed to be neutral not harmful, I dont know what you mean by phenotypic mutation thou.
Can you cite a source for those probabilities or did you make them up on the spot? Still you made an other straw man, since you some how assume that the mutations are independent, which they aren't,
You can make what ever anology for complexity that you want, but it still wont be supported by evidence afaik.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 14 2009 03:28 Kaialynn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 03:25 uNiGNoRe wrote:
I don't see how you can "believe" in evolution. It's a fact... I don't "believe" that earth isn't flat, I know it. Because Evolution is a theory. Theory in scientific terms implies a hypothesis. Hypotheses can ONLY be proved wrong, they can NEVER be proven right, according to the science world. That's why.
theory is so much higher up the ladder of confidence than hypothesis. for starters, theory means ideas that are seriously developed and corroborated by evidence, so that they are worth further attention.
|
Off topic:
+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2009 03:19 Ichigo1234551 wrote:
There are a lot of stupid people in america. almost 90 percent rednecks
User was temp-banned for this post.I like that the mods are showing what posts people are getting banned for (unless its way TOO controversial i suppose). It reduces my curiosity 
|
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
Literal interpretations of Religions vs really any science cannot co-exist.
But for people i hope most of them they take religions not on a factual basis but as stories, and songs with strong positions not always moral. Frankly the literal interpretation of religion is a dead facet as more knowledge spreads the obvious is revealed. Religion is to interpret why were are here and what to do about it; science is to interpret what is here. To me at least they never touch and are always separate.
Evolution and Creationism cannot co-exist.
|
On September 14 2009 18:10 HnR)hT wrote:The utter fatigue is now growing stronger than the insomnia, so I'm going back to bed after submitting this.  My consciousness argument, as spelled out in the robot analogy above and associated follow-up posts, is roughly like this (please note that this is a highly simplified form): 1. Darwinian evolution does not use the fact that living things have consciousness. (A robot that is completely unaware of consciousness, that observes living things from a distance, can conceivably formulate something like Darwinian evolution.) Alternatively, I begin with the premise (which I regard as very strong) that consciousness in living things cannot be logically deduced from external observation of behavior alone. Yet Darwinian evolution follows (in principle) from external observation of life alone. 2. Therefore, consciousness seems extraneous in the purely Darwinian view of life. 3. But consciousness clearly exists. 4. Therefore, the Darwinian-evolutionary view of life becomes less plausible. This is more of a plausibility argument than a logically airtight argument, which is the only kind possible in the absence of complete information.
OK. You believe you are conscious. Prove it. Prove that your actions are not due to your biological machinery.
Too hard? Well, you don't have to prove it. Just provide some evidence that your actions are in any way separate from your biological machinery. One tiny shred of proof that your actions can be separated from your biological machinery.
I'll wait.
...
Consciousness is not a scientific topic. It is too il-defined to be science. Therefore, science rejects it, as it rejects astral projection, the concept of souls, and any other supernatural concepts that cannot be definitely determinable by natural investigation.
Consciousness does not "clearly exist." How do I know that I possess a quality that I can't even rigorously define? And you even defined consciousness as something that cannot be determined by an outside party. If that's the case, why should anyone believe that anyone else is a conscious being? And if you accept that everyone around you is not conscious, why should you believe that you are conscious? Cogito ergo sum is not a scientific argument.
Because of all of this, consciousness is not a verifiable fact as far as science is concerned. Therefore, consciousness is an irrelevance to science.
Oh, you can posit that you or other people are conscious beings. Science won't stop you, as it can't determine one way or another, and science is perfectly willing to say "I don't know." However, science cannot determine that something as il-defined as consciousness actually exists, so it is not a valid subject for scientific discourse.
Here's the question though: why should the presence or absence of consciousness affect a person's moral judgment? We certainly can empathize with other creatures; that's one of those biologically hard-wired things we have. So even if we cannot determine that other beings are as conscious as we may be (if we even believe ourselves to be conscious to begin with), we clearly care about them. Science is a means to discover verifiable knowledge, not to develop a moral framework.
|
On September 15 2009 03:27 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 18:10 HnR)hT wrote:The utter fatigue is now growing stronger than the insomnia, so I'm going back to bed after submitting this. My consciousness argument, as spelled out in the robot analogy above and associated follow-up posts, is roughly like this (please note that this is a highly simplified form): 1. Darwinian evolution does not use the fact that living things have consciousness. (A robot that is completely unaware of consciousness, that observes living things from a distance, can conceivably formulate something like Darwinian evolution.) Alternatively, I begin with the premise (which I regard as very strong) that consciousness in living things cannot be logically deduced from external observation of behavior alone. Yet Darwinian evolution follows (in principle) from external observation of life alone. 2. Therefore, consciousness seems extraneous in the purely Darwinian view of life. 3. But consciousness clearly exists. 4. Therefore, the Darwinian-evolutionary view of life becomes less plausible. This is more of a plausibility argument than a logically airtight argument, which is the only kind possible in the absence of complete information. OK. You believe you are conscious. Prove it. Prove that your actions are not due to your biological machinery. Too hard? Well, you don't have to prove it. Just provide some evidence that your actions are in any way separate from your biological machinery. One tiny shred of proof that your actions can be separated from your biological machinery. I'll wait. ...
Correct. Where in the human body is the soul? If the soul exists outside the body, then there should at least be a physical 'gateway' to it - one or more places in the body where the soul receives input and sends information back to the body to act upon.
As for the rest of your post, you seem to think conscience and consciousness are the same word...
|
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
On September 15 2009 02:46 Saddened Izzy wrote:
Evolution and Creationism cannot co-exist.
Oooo with the redundant period, it makes the claim so much stronger! I'll have to disagree though. Many Christians, including my friend, are strong believers in "Evolution." As the sad Izzy said, it's the stance of Creationism that disagrees with Evolution.
And I agree with some of the posters in this thread, it seems more of a publicity stunt than any genuine concern or issues.
|
On September 14 2009 17:12 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period. I agree with your conclusion but your reasoning is faulty. The vast majority of Christians don't regard the Bible as the literal word of God (in constrast to Muslims vis a vis the Koran), but the work of flawed human beings from a primitive society, attempting to transmit God's message as they best understand it. The vast majority of contemporary Christianity is not committed to the historical existence of Adam and Eve and Noah's ark, and the vast majority would outright reject the notion that God literally commanded the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, including women and children.
On what basis do liberal Christians decide what is the word of god and what is a flawed, human account of history?
On the other hand, it is undeniable that the Christian view of man is incompatible with the purely mechanistic conception of life, with its Darwinian imperatives, and that in the West, the advent of Darwinian evolution has overthrown traditional justifications for morality.
Which ones would those be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
