On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
i'm really starting to question your background in education. this is easily explainable.
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
now lets take your example. a mutation occurs where we have a lizard that has oddly wired blood vessels in the eyes. at times blood shoots out of his eye sockets during stressful moments because of increased blood pressure via adrenaline. As it turns out the predator has, via evolution, learned to avoid red because he too has a predator or something in his environment that causes him to avoid this color. over time the predators end up eating all the other lizards while this small group of mutated lizards manages to survive via it's genetic mutation. now we end up with almost all the lizards shooting blood out of their eyes since it was passed on in their gene pool. some can shoot a lot of blood, others can shoot only a small amount. maybe there are even ones who shoot so much blood out of their eyes that they end up with a massive amount of blood loss and die because of it. Those lizards are then weeded out of the gene pool too due to their genetic mutation working negatively for them. what we are left with over time are the lizards you are talking about today.
i'm still asking you to define the scientific method and the "magic" you're talking about.
well it would be more obvious if they got selected for their running / hide hability this is something so specific they even have to aim for it to work.btw i believe in evolution just that i think there must be something more to it like adaptation modifying genes.
as for the definitions i agree with wikipedia. but you dont try to understand the main idea.
You make it sound like evolution is a conscious process. Species don't aim for some ability, evolution just happens and has to happen once you have its prerequisites. They probably did get selected for their running/hiding abilities too, that doesn't exclude the bloody eyes.
How big an advantage do you think eyebrows are? They might keep drops of sweat out of your eyes but how often is that necessary? Maybe there is a lion standing in a bush near you and the human with the eyebrows has a slightly higher chance of seeing it in time. The selection pressure needed isn't really that big since we are talking about millions of years of natural selection. To me its much more grand and amazing how wales and hippos have a recent common ancestor. Hippos are closer relatives to wales than they are to pigs.
btw is behavior coded in the genes like how does a spider know its supposed to build a web? with this exact design?
Yes, yes it is. That is exactly what Richard Dawkins second book The Extended Phenotype is about.
Some behaviours are, some behaviours are not. In the case of a spider's web, it is.
I would say that in animals other than humans especially in the more primitive forms of life almost all behavior is coded into the genes. A lot of human behavior has its roots in our genes too but of course we unlike other animals have culture and language from which a lot of our thinking and behavior stems. But culture and language can be given evolutionary explanations too through Memetics
On July 15 2008 20:24 zizou21 wrote: Excellent BBC Documentary on Nietzsche
On July 15 2008 17:13 Funchucks wrote: Nietzsche was certainly inspired by Darwin.
Without Darwin, there would have been no Nietzsche. Without Nietzsche, there would have been no Hitler. Without Hitler, no Nazis. Without Nazis, no Holocaust. And all for the want of a nail.
Perhaps without Ford and the Model T, Hitler would not have believed in the potential for mass-produced tanks.
A butterfly flapped its wings and Hiroshima blew up.
Why are people fighting to prevent any sort of connection between Darwin's teachings and Hitler's politics? It is hardly news that science and technology are dangerous, and the Nazis certainly applied both technology and scientific ideals toward inhumane ends in innumerable ways.
Is it somehow more troubling that science supplies ideological weapons than that it supplies physical weapons? Personally, I am more frightened of the latter sort.
The interesting part of the discussion on weapon-based science is that through developing more and more sofisticated weapons, the science surrounding it has provided the general scientific community with priceless data concerning several scientific subjects. One example is the fact that the development of the atomic bomb actually provided priceless information concerning particle physics which helped the scientists Gamov and Alpher understand the nucleosynthesis.
I just have to say that I don't fully understand your view of history. Chaos theory does'nt really go well with history. F.e I personally think the second world war and the holocaust would've happened without the existance of Nietzsche, even without Hitler. It's not about people it's about greater factors like economy, culture, politics and history that make and break events like these. The nazi-party was not dependent on neither Nietzsche nor Hitler.
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
i'm really starting to question your background in education. this is easily explainable.
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
now lets take your example. a mutation occurs where we have a lizard that has oddly wired blood vessels in the eyes. at times blood shoots out of his eye sockets during stressful moments because of increased blood pressure via adrenaline. As it turns out the predator has, via evolution, learned to avoid red because he too has a predator or something in his environment that causes him to avoid this color. over time the predators end up eating all the other lizards while this small group of mutated lizards manages to survive via it's genetic mutation. now we end up with almost all the lizards shooting blood out of their eyes since it was passed on in their gene pool. some can shoot a lot of blood, others can shoot only a small amount. maybe there are even ones who shoot so much blood out of their eyes that they end up with a massive amount of blood loss and die because of it. Those lizards are then weeded out of the gene pool too due to their genetic mutation working negatively for them. what we are left with over time are the lizards you are talking about today.
i'm still asking you to define the scientific method and the "magic" you're talking about.
well it would be more obvious if they got selected for their running / hide hability this is something so specific they even have to aim for it to work.btw i believe in evolution just that i think there must be something more to it like adaptation modifying genes.
as for the definitions i agree with wikipedia. but you dont try to understand the main idea.
You make it sound like evolution is a conscious process. Species don't aim for some ability, evolution just happens and has to happen once you have its prerequisites. They probably did get selected for their running/hiding abilities too, that doesn't exclude the bloody eyes.
How big an advantage do you think eyebrows are? They might keep drops of sweat out of your eyes but how often is that necessary? Maybe there is a lion standing in a bush near you and the human with the eyebrows has a slightly higher chance of seeing it in time. The selection pressure needed isn't really that big since we are talking about millions of years of natural selection. To me its much more grand and amazing how wales and hippos have a recent common ancestor. Hippos are closer relatives to wales than they are to pigs.
btw is behavior coded in the genes like how does a spider know its supposed to build a web? with this exact design?
Yes, yes it is. That is exactly what Richard Dawkins second book The Extended Phenotype is about.
Some behaviours are, some behaviours are not. In the case of a spider's web, it is.
I would say that in animals other than humans especially in the more primitive forms of life almost all behavior is coded into the genes. A lot of human behavior has its roots in our genes too but of course we unlike other animals have culture and language from which a lot of our thinking and behavior stems. But culture and language can be given evolutionary explanations too through Memetics
nice post and for evolved animals i guess parenting+social+gene code behavior
On July 15 2008 20:48 Makhno wrote: Many here seem to find Richard Dawkins too violent in his attacks on religion and unwilling to compromise, which is exactly what makes him so great. In the God Delusion he clearly states that he is well aware of the aggressive stance he has taken towards religion and that he does so because he is genuinley concerned about the effects of religion on humanity today and especially it's negative effect on kids.
Yeah that's true.
Just because the existance of God can't be entirely disproved does'nt mean it's as likely as the actual existance of a God! It does'nt make it a close 50/50 between a supernatural force that has absolutely no place in modern science anywhere, and an presently unknown scientific explanation of, most prominently i guess, the creation of the universe. To be agnostic about something as unlikely as an omnipotent- /scient -/present force is plain... dumb I have to say. Sorry if someone is offended by this.
Is agnosticism even defined like this, that you think it's equally likely that there is a god or not? I don't think so... besides, agnosticism has many forms anyway.
I'm not sure what my position would be called exactly but I think it's very unlikely that a god exists (although I don't rule out the possibility), and extremely unlikely that a god like the Christian or Islamic one exists. And overall the question is largely irrelevant because it can't be proven or disproven anyway, so why even bother thinking about it. Whether you believe in it or not also has no verifiable advantages or disadvantages except subjective beliefs. So the question of god or no god is quite irrelevant. What is very relevant, though, is that religious zealots pose a threat to society.
On July 15 2008 20:48 Makhno wrote: Many here seem to find Richard Dawkins too violent in his attacks on religion and unwilling to compromise, which is exactly what makes him so great. In the God Delusion he clearly states that he is well aware of the aggressive stance he has taken towards religion and that he does so because he is genuinley concerned about the effects of religion on humanity today and especially it's negative effect on kids.
Just because the existance of God can't be entirely disproved does'nt mean it's as likely as the actual existance of a God! It does'nt make it a close 50/50 between a supernatural force that has absolutely no place in modern science anywhere, and an presently unknown scientific explanation of, most prominently i guess, the creation of the universe. To be agnostic about something as unlikely as an omnipotent- /scient -/present force is plain... dumb I have to say. Sorry if someone is offended by this.
Is agnosticism even defined like this, that you think it's equally likely that there is a god or not? I don't think so... besides, agnosticism has many forms anyway.
I'm not sure what my position would be called exactly but I think it's very unlikely that a god exists (although I don't rule out the possibility), and extremely unlikely that a god like the Christian or Islamic one exists. And overall the question is largely irrelevant because it can't be proven or disproven anyway, so why even bother thinking about it. Whether you believe in it or not also has no verifiable advantages or disadvantages except subjective beliefs. So the question of god or no god is quite irrelevant. What is very relevant, though, is that religious zealots pose a threat to society.
Well you're right about agnosticism taking many different forms, I was just refering to the one I encounter most often in discussions, the view that it could be either way, a supernatural force or a scientific explanation. It's this belief that I find the most annoying because it is generally secular, intelligent people that have it and they have adopted this view that all the gaps in the scientific explanation of reality can be filled with either more science or a supernatural force.
I just can't understand why someone would think that just because science hasn't reached the level of complete understanding it automatically aknowledges any idea to make it get there. Has'nt science proved, again and again, that holding a dogmatic and irrational belief in something that has not been proven is like begging to be completely intellectually destroyed when new observations come around?
The only agnosticism I find rational is the strong agnosticism which argues that supernatural things might exist but we simply cannot grasp them with our limited tools and understanding. But even this sort of thinking has flaws. Up to this point science has never run in to a complete cul-de-sac and believing that it has, as previously stated, has always made the conservative view-holders (as in dogmatic) look foolish in retrospect. And even though the notion of something supernatural that cannot, by it's very nature, be understood by man is irrelevant until we percieve some indication of it's existance.
I'm rambling, sorry, I just really like this discussion.
Until we find a cure for stupidity, all of you in this thread, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or whoever are all just wasting your time (well them at least are making money off it).
Neil DeGrasse Tyson (ultimate badass) touches on this a bit.
Look it's really simple: People believes in god/mysticism -> people does not accept logic/reason as an argument -> arguing with said people using logical arguments makes no sense
This is simple math, as clear as 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not gonna argue back to the ones trying to argue with me saying "but I'm not dumb" or "but I believe in both" because it's the whole point of what I'm saying that arguing back is futile.
There is no excuse to not use scientific method in any circumstance. Those saying the contrary simply cannot comprehend logic and will believe whatever the feel the most fuzzy with no matter what evidence says. So this whole thread and any other discussion trying to convince mystical people that mysticism does not exist will always fail.
Just look at the chart someone just posted, it represents what I'm saying perfectly:
If that doesn't convince you that arguing with the ones on the right is futile. Then nothing will. C'mon you guys are circling around the same people explaining some basic stuff such as Darwinism that takes only a couple of seconds to explain and understand, and you are still circling around those same people for over 20 pages in this thread. You're wasting your time.
You say that, yet there are scientists in the National Academy of Science and people with doctorates who are far more educated than you or I, who still believe there is a supernatural being.
Until we find a cure for stupidity, all of you in this thread, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or whoever are all just wasting your time (well them at least are making money off it).
Neil DeGrasse Tyson (ultimate badass) touches on this a bit.
i dont think that really applies to the whole intelligent design in the classroom thing, which hes addressing. its not that scientists are saying god fucked with the genes because they cant understand how it happened, the church is pushing it to give god a role. lack of knowledge has nothing to do with it.
That's what I'm saying. The hope is that by educating the public we can eliminate those who follow frivolous ideas, but there's an underlying issue that causes even the highly educated to believe in God. So rooting out idiots is not the answer.
this stuff is so simple to me: yin, yang and needs. (need = from where the god 'must' come) we give introvert people the value yin and extrovert people value yang. (see introvert and extrovert as basic/dominant expresions of self, without the complications/modifications brought on by 'living'. ).
introverts are immersed in their inner self thus god is within (nietchze, dawkin, scientists, philosophers &co) and extroverts are more preoccupied by the outside world thus their god is/comes from outside (pope, hot blooded latinas who need men as their gods &co). those are the needs of each type of personality and they fight for superiority.
we all know what yin and yang means (but just in case) - "two opposing and, at the same time, complementary aspects of any one phenomenon (object or process)", "two complementary qualities", "two aspects in a dynamic equilibrium. As one aspect declines, the other increases to an equal degree".
so i guess it's just time for yin to become the dominant aspect. it's evolution. who knows if it will bring more good than bad but carry on, speculate. + Show Spoiler +
i did assume a degree of knowledge/education of people. the fact that an 100% introvet or extrovert person doesn't exist doesnt change a thing. yin and yang will always exist. it never was, it isn't and it will never be about something else except ourselfs and our needs. god is just a currency.
Uhh sorry that's a nice, pat sounding theory, but it sounds totally hokey to me.
e.g. you could make the same argument the other way around. Scientists are more concerned with being able to predict the outside world (outer yang), whereas religious people are more about dealing with the inner souls and personal redemption/consolation (inner yin).
I wouldn't even really call these two complementary... the naturalist and religious worldviews seem pretty much one-or-the-other to me, at least for those who have their minds made up.
On July 16 2008 01:38 VIB wrote: Look it's really simple: People believes in god/mysticism -> people does not accept logic/reason as an argument -> arguing with said people using logical arguments makes no sense
This is simple math, as clear as 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not gonna argue back to the ones trying to argue with me saying "but I'm not dumb" or "but I believe in both" because it's the whole point of what I'm saying that arguing back is futile.
There is no excuse to not use scientific method in any circumstance. Those saying the contrary simply cannot comprehend logic and will believe whatever the feel the most fuzzy with no matter what evidence says. So this whole thread and any other discussion trying to convince mystical people that mysticism does not exist will always fail.
No. You are not answering me not because I cannot be argued with, but because you have no arguments. If you do in fact have scientific proof that man should have freedom of speech, let us hear it. And I want a proof worthy of being put in Nature. If you cannot comply with this, you either admit that man should not have freedom of speech, since it cannot be proven we must, due to your arguing that nothing should be done unless there is scientific proof for it, or you just shut up. Both might boil down to the same thing.
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
i'm really starting to question your background in education. this is easily explainable.
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
now lets take your example. a mutation occurs where we have a lizard that has oddly wired blood vessels in the eyes. at times blood shoots out of his eye sockets during stressful moments because of increased blood pressure via adrenaline. As it turns out the predator has, via evolution, learned to avoid red because he too has a predator or something in his environment that causes him to avoid this color. over time the predators end up eating all the other lizards while this small group of mutated lizards manages to survive via it's genetic mutation. now we end up with almost all the lizards shooting blood out of their eyes since it was passed on in their gene pool. some can shoot a lot of blood, others can shoot only a small amount. maybe there are even ones who shoot so much blood out of their eyes that they end up with a massive amount of blood loss and die because of it. Those lizards are then weeded out of the gene pool too due to their genetic mutation working negatively for them. what we are left with over time are the lizards you are talking about today.
i'm still asking you to define the scientific method and the "magic" you're talking about.
well it would be more obvious if they got selected for their running / hide hability this is something so specific they even have to aim for it to work.btw i believe in evolution just that i think there must be something more to it like adaptation modifying genes.
as for the definitions i agree with wikipedia. but you dont try to understand the main idea.
You make it sound like evolution is a conscious process. Species don't aim for some ability, evolution just happens and has to happen once you have its prerequisites. They probably did get selected for their running/hiding abilities too, that doesn't exclude the bloody eyes.
How big an advantage do you think eyebrows are? They might keep drops of sweat out of your eyes but how often is that necessary? Maybe there is a lion standing in a bush near you and the human with the eyebrows has a slightly higher chance of seeing it in time. The selection pressure needed isn't really that big since we are talking about millions of years of natural selection. To me its much more grand and amazing how wales and hippos have a recent common ancestor. Hippos are closer relatives to wales than they are to pigs.
btw is behavior coded in the genes like how does a spider know its supposed to build a web? with this exact design?
Yes, yes it is. That is exactly what Richard Dawkins second book The Extended Phenotype is about.
Some behaviours are, some behaviours are not. In the case of a spider's web, it is.
I would say that in animals other than humans especially in the more primitive forms of life almost all behavior is coded into the genes. A lot of human behavior has its roots in our genes too but of course we unlike other animals have culture and language from which a lot of our thinking and behavior stems. But culture and language can be given evolutionary explanations too through Memetics
Please describe to me how the model of memetics can be either proven or disproved. I am genuinely curious, because I do not see how you can.
On July 16 2008 02:59 Fwmeh wrote: Please describe to me how the model of memetics can be either proven or disproved. I am genuinely curious, because I do not see how you can.
Memetics is just a way of looking at things. I think it is demonstrably true from logical principles and indisputable facts alone.
Ideas (memes) are generated in the brains of individuals. The ideas (memes) are conveyed to other individuals through communication (meme reproduction). In the passage of time, some ideas are remembered and spread (memes flourish) while others are forgotten (memes go extinct). Sometimes, ideas inspire new ideas or are misremembered (memes mutate). Those ideas which are more memorable to the minds they have access to are more likely to be remembered, and the opposite also holds true (survival of the fittest memes).
Memetics is just a particular way of looking at things, not a falsifiable scientific theory.
On July 16 2008 02:41 Jibba wrote: That's what I'm saying. The hope is that by educating the public we can eliminate those who follow frivolous ideas, but there's an underlying issue that causes even the highly educated to believe in God. So rooting out idiots is not the answer.
ah sorry i wasnt even addressing how you were using it, just responding to the video itself.
On July 16 2008 01:55 Jibba wrote: You say that, yet there are scientists in the National Academy of Science and people with doctorates who are far more educated than you or I, who still believe there is a supernatural being.
Are you confusing intelligence with knowledge? Both are not mutually inclusive. The first is a physiological consequence of genetic data and the second is the result of your memory (a different genetics) interacting with the environment. Environmental interaction won't affect your born genetics physiology (well, unless someone cut your brain into pieces, but that's beyond the point).
On July 16 2008 01:38 VIB wrote: Look it's really simple: People believes in god/mysticism -> people does not accept logic/reason as an argument -> arguing with said people using logical arguments makes no sense
This is simple math, as clear as 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not gonna argue back to the ones trying to argue with me saying "but I'm not dumb" or "but I believe in both" because it's the whole point of what I'm saying that arguing back is futile.
There is no excuse to not use scientific method in any circumstance. Those saying the contrary simply cannot comprehend logic and will believe whatever the feel the most fuzzy with no matter what evidence says. So this whole thread and any other discussion trying to convince mystical people that mysticism does not exist will always fail.
No. You are not answering me not because I cannot be argued with, but because you have no arguments. If you do in fact have scientific proof that man should have freedom of speech, let us hear it. And I want a proof worthy of being put in Nature. If you cannot comply with this, you either admit that man should not have freedom of speech, since it cannot be proven we must, due to your arguing that nothing should be done unless there is scientific proof for it, or you just shut up. Both might boil down to the same thing.
I already answered you in the first line of the post you quoted. I had answered you before in the post you quoted before. You're still arguing with me and want me to post it again, so you can not understand again, ask me to argue again ad infinitum. There is no better proof that you cannot be argued with reason than this argument we're having.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://nomadcom.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/sciencevsfaith.gif)
