|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2007 : 01:12:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
The link wouldn't open for me, but I did manage to find this and this. You are at least partally correct, although it seems that no firm conclusions have been reached. |
You got one of my sources right there. Good one!
As for the "no firm conclusions" or "Speculations" I'd say we can only look at the facts, the observations. The observations are "Removal of the eye disturbs photoperiod perception of these creatures" and that "The mammalian eye is indeed an essential intermediate in processes like thermoregulation, reproduction, and hibernation, which require information about changes in photoperiod." This research just shows how difficult it is to show that an organ is useless.
Here's a little bit more information on how the eye in the Blind Mole Rat develops, take not of what would seem like damage being done to the eye.
"To help clarify the possibly remaining function of the eyes in this species, the authors studied their development and ultrastructure. In the early embryos the presumptive eye regions—the epithelium, lens vesicle, and optic cup—appear initially normal. As development progresses, the iris-ciliary body complex originates prematurely from the margin of the optic cup and shows a very rapid and massive growth. This pigment-laden tissue mass remains attached to the corneal stroma, obliterates the anterior chamber, and prevents the formation of the corneal endothelium and Descemet's membrane. In the developing lens the elongation of the lens fibers leads to the formation of a rudimentary lens nucleus that becomes disorganized and vacuolated and eventually also becomes vascularized. The optic fissure fails to close, the eyes remain colobomatous, and the optic disc appears atrophic. In contrast, retinal histogenesis progresses relatively normally, resulting in structurally reduced but well-differentiated photoreceptor, neuronal, and ganglion cell layers in the adult eye. Immunohistochemically, the presence of opsin could be demonstrated in the photoreceptor cells. The latter features may indicate that these rudimentary eyes are still functioning in the complex neuroendocrine pathways mediating photoperiodicity."
| I was mistaken and that is the problem with common names. |
Yes, it is a problem. I did specifically say the blind mole rat though...
Yes, I do know what is believed, I'm just showing my reasons for not believing them.
As for the serpent lung, it's useless to debate. I've shown you how easy it is to assume that a specific creature's organ doesn't have a function when infact it does. I'm not a professional biologist and even if I were and I did the reasearch that shows the functions of all the different creatures "vestigial" organs, all that would have been accomplished was satifying your curiousity as that is no problem for evolution at all. Creationism wouldn't be defended or supported in anyway because we already knew that it's near impossible to say an organ is useless.
It's win-win for you and wasteoftime-wasteoftime for me...
You really can't say an organ is not functional and either way it doesn't harm evolution, so I don't see why you would have a problem with these organs having a function.
| Never the less, it remains a vestigial tail. |
I have no problem if you want to believe that, again I'm just saying why I don't.
If people will believe this world is goverened by a thousand gods on no evidence, I see why you would assume these organs evolved on actual reasons.
| I like to throw a little sick humor in now & again -- surely you are familiar with out alledged president, G.W. Bush. |
I'm familiar with the man, I've gots no love for him, but I do know of him.
I still didn't get the joke though, I'm slow like that... especially with political humour.
| Are you trying to instruct me on how to write? |
Sort of, not specifically on how to write, but more on debating etiquettes
| Of course Talk Origins is biased! It concerns itself with science, not myth, and, as you say, is constantly attacked by creationists. Unsuccessfully, I might add. I find blowing it off so casually to be the hight of conceit. Have you found any inaccuracies in it? If so, what are they? |
Yes, that's what I was saying (again). I haven't particualarly found any flaw in it (haven't been looking), but I have found a lot of what seems like zealotism. Bias leads to pride, that pride leads zealotism and zealotism leads to inaccuracies.
Take the Horse Evolution article I read once. They spoke quite vehemently against creationsist's words about gradualism, the argument itself seemed to me more like "Look! horses evolved, therefore EVERYTHING evolved". I was a little disappointed with them whilst I was reading it. They usually maintain their composure...
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not sure, either. Why did you bring it up? |
Why did I clear up the commonly misunderstood word "evolution"?
So it would clear up my understanding of the meaning of the word, of course.
I'm not sure why you decided to reference other creationists in quote of my post, when I specifically cleared up that I did not hold that incorrect view on the meaning.
| Yes, I know what you meant. But I also know that the trnasition to land began over 350 million years ago, not just 100 million. Is there a problem with that? |
Whether it was 100 Million or 100 Billion doesn't matter, it's whether there's a viable method in doing so, which I fail to see or find.
| You've got a strange concept of the science behind the conclusions. |
This goes out to the rest of you that said the same thing...
It's easy to say, but if you don't give reasons why my concept is "strange" (that being an ambiguous word) then your words have no meaning. I know everyone here would think my ideas are strange. Human beings think everything "different" is strange. So lets get back to debating and try not to let our opinions and preconceived ideas get the best of us... Ok?
The same goes for myself.
| But that happens all the time. For example, we can watch as the proportions of alleles in a living population change over time. We can see in the fossil record that species appear, thrive, and die out. The evidence isn't speculative, because the evidence is stuff we can see and touch. |
Yes it does happen all the time and people are wrong all the time too... especially in science. That's the definition of science. realigning with the facts. Well I'm just propagating what I know...
| As others have indicated, this is news to me, too. |
All news is good news, except bad news.
| Oh, it definitely isn't science, so what would it matter if there's evidence? Providing evidence for God, after all, is nothing more than a misguided attempt to give scientific rigor to religion. |
What would it matter? Everything to the truth.
It isn't scientific that Ford makes Ford cars, yet it does matter to say that they do and not that the cars evolved from each other.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Coelacanth, I believe you have a quite honest misconception of how scientists work and think. You're way off target when you state "it's mostly just speculation." I suggest you find a good narrative book about scientists doing research. I think you would be surprised to find how careful they are about making conclusions. (I hope others may suggest some titles.)
"Speculation" does come into science, in the stage of deciding what to study. For instance, a scientist studying birds on an isolated island might find two species, one with flight, the other flightless. He might speculate that the two had a common ancestor. But he wouldn't publish this speculation as a conclusion. Instead, his speculation might lead him to look for fossils of a common ancestor. Then, if he found such, he could write up his conclusions for publication.
The scientific world is a ravening battlefield of oneupmanship and competition. Incautious conclusions can make scientists look foolish, and ruin their chances of getting tenure, work, or funding. They cannot afford to leap to conclusions, as you seem to think. They have to be cautious! |
Oh I read up very often on scientific research, but regardless of the oneupmanship (which does do a lot of good) there's one thing the majority of scientist hold in opinion common to each other and that is the Theory of Evolution. I hear that one poll registered 90% of American Scientists.
When you have a preconceived idea of how something works, you'll come up with a thousand different reasons why it is true, especially when referencing something that no one could witness or has witnessed. People commonly assume the deductions of their predecessors. The same is for creationism.
That's something that's been happening since the beginning of time. The scientific method does help a lot, but there is no infallible method of doing so.
Originally posted by Dude
You'll have to do better than handwaving. Pick a specific piece of evidence for evolution then start a new thread, in that thread try to make your point about this evidence being "speculative". (speculative evidence... an oxymoron if there ever was was... heh) |
Are you saying there's a line of evidence for evolution that isn't speculative?
I could easily list the speculative ones, but then that would do no good, because you claim there are other non speculative ones, right?... I'm not sure what ones those would be exactly.
Originally posted by Dude
Ah, yes. The root of your error. A previously held notion that is directly contradicted by science (ToE and abiogenesis in particular) that you are unwilling to let go of.
Also in a new thread you should try to explain to us exactly how your god isn't speculative. I don't expect anything new, but you never know, so please, head on down to the religion folder and give it a go! |
Opinions, opinions... God is only complimented by science in every way. The theory of evolution being a tool of the many aspects of life which have shown us the perfection and precision of god's workings. Evolution doesn't contradict with God at all. The Fish-to-Man idea does, but then that's still just an opinion held by many scientists and not an actual fact at all.
Abiogenesis isn't a proven at all, it's just a plausible assumption held by scientists looking for a scientific origin to the world. Abiogeneis is one of the topics that some creationsists use to disprove evolution when infact evolution stands alone, separate from abiogenesis. Abiogenesis itself however is far from proven as far as I'm concerened. I know many of you would disagree, but as far as my research goes... it is.
I would go through the support for God... but I've typed enough already.
Hopefully next time guys! |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 01:46:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Yes, it is a problem. I did specifically say the blind mole rat though...
|
That's probably what you meant but what you wrote was:
| These experiments were carried out on the supposed completely blind "Mole-Rat" |
Not a big deal just pointing out that it was ambiguous which type of mole rat you meant. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 02:56:33 [Permalink]
|
The problem with 'belief' is that, for the true believer(tm) no supporting evidence is necessary and evidence to the contrary can be easily ignored.
But tell me, how exactly do you find this speculative? In science, speculations are not published unless labeled as such. The speculator would be figuratively ripped to shreds by his/her peers.
But never the less, the coccyx and the afore-mentioned eyes and the serpent's lung are all vestigial, as is the dandelion's pollen.
And as for my 'debating etiquette,' well, anyone who takes exception to it is not forced to read it. At this late stage of my life, I am unlikely to change my ways.
Edit: To repeat: just because an organ has some function or other, does not mean that it is not a vestage of what it once was. The coccyx was once a tail and the mole rat's eyes once worked perfectly well, on rodent scale at least. And at one time, the snake's ancestors had two normally functioning lungs, as do the snake-like, legless lizards of today.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/26/2007 03:19:56 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 03:11:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Coelacanth, I believe you have a quite honest misconception of how scientists work and think. You're way off target when you state "it's mostly just speculation." I suggest you find a good narrative book about scientists doing research. I think you would be surprised to find how careful they are about making conclusions. (I hope others may suggest some titles.)
"Speculation" does come into science, in the stage of deciding what to study. For instance, a scientist studying birds on an isolated island might find two species, one with flight, the other flightless. He might speculate that the two had a common ancestor. But he wouldn't publish this speculation as a conclusion. Instead, his speculation might lead him to look for fossils of a common ancestor. Then, if he found such, he could write up his conclusions for publication.
The scientific world is a ravening battlefield of oneupmanship and competition. Incautious conclusions can make scientists look foolish, and ruin their chances of getting tenure, work, or funding. They cannot afford to leap to conclusions, as you seem to think. They have to be cautious! |
Oh I read up very often on scientific research, but regardless of the oneupmanship (which does do a lot of good) there's one thing the majority of scientist hold in opinion common to each other and that is the Theory of Evolution. I hear that one poll registered 90% of American Scientists.
When you have a preconceived idea of how something works, you'll come up with a thousand different reasons why it is true, especially when referencing something that no one could witness or has witnessed. People commonly assume the deductions of their predecessors. The same is for creationism.
That's something that's been happening since the beginning of time. The scientific method does help a lot, but there is no infallible method of doing so. |
[My emphasis.]
That implies a false conclusion, and specious reasoning. It shows you do not indeed yet understand science as it is, only as you were told it is. The fact that the vast majority of scientists in general (and virtually all of those in the biological and geological fields) support evolution cannot be twisted into an argument against evolution, Coelacanth.
I sense there the old "They all believe in evolution, so that shows they are prejudiced" argument. In fact, the very "oneupmanship" which you agree is useful in science assures that any scientist coming up with real evidence that could refute and could demolish the evolution would stand to make him or herself an historic place in science, probably superior to that of Einstein.
Coelacanth, there is a cultural war going on in which religious fundamentalists are attacking rationality itself, in order to further their dreams (our nightmares) of rule by preachers over an ignorant flock. I hope you are able to reclaim your rationality fully.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/26/2007 03:12:48 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 07:56:07 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth said:
Are you saying there's a line of evidence for evolution that isn't speculative?
I could easily list the speculative ones, but then that would do no good, because you claim there are other non speculative ones, right?... I'm not sure what ones those would be exactly.
|
Start a new thread, pick one bit of evidence that you claim is "speculative", and explain why it is "speculative".
If you can't do that, then your claims are dismissed as hand-waving. You have already admitted that you are unable to overcome your theistic indoctrination and let go of the delusional claims made by all theistic systems. On the off chance that you have some valid point I'd still like you to start that thread though.
Originally posted by Dude
Ah, yes. The root of your error. A previously held notion that is directly contradicted by science (ToE and abiogenesis in particular) that you are unwilling to let go of.
Also in a new thread you should try to explain to us exactly how your god isn't speculative. I don't expect anything new, but you never know, so please, head on down to the religion folder and give it a go! |
Opinions, opinions... God is only complimented by science in every way. The theory of evolution being a tool of the many aspects of life which have shown us the perfection and precision of god's workings. Evolution doesn't contradict with God at all. The Fish-to-Man idea does, but then that's still just an opinion held by many scientists and not an actual fact at all.
|
I think you have overloaded my irony gland.... in order to make the case you are claiming, you will need some of that pesky evidence stuff. Your unqualified opinion is (aside from being ironic) meaningless.
Evolution does indeed contradict a literal reading of the "holy" texts of the big three (christianity, judaism, islam), and any other religion that has a creation myth. Odd that no religious text has managed to explain evolution, all those claims of omnipotence and whatnot.
| Abiogenesis isn't a proven at all, it's just a plausible assumption held by scientists looking for a scientific origin to the world. Abiogeneis is one of the topics that some creationsists use to disprove evolution when infact evolution stands alone, separate from abiogenesis. Abiogenesis itself however is far from proven as far as I'm concerened. I know many of you would disagree, but as far as my research goes... it is. |
Yes. Abiogenesis and evolution are indeed separate, if related, topics. The evidence on abiogenesis is very limited, so much so that it does not yet rise to the level of theory but rather hypothesis. No one credible would say otherwise. The basic concept, however, is the only plausible explanation for the origin of life unless you decide to assume the existence of some supernatural entity.
That said.... the difficulty in studying the history of this planet from 3.5 to 4 billion years ago is high. It has only recently been possible to start such an investigation. Give it some time.
I would go through the support for God... but I've typed enough already.
Hopefully next time guys! |
Go down to the religion folder and have at it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2007 : 08:17:42 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth:
Whether it was 100 Million or 100 Billion doesn't matter, it's whether there's a viable method in doing so, which I fail to see or find. |
In this view, all of the supporting evidence can be waved away as speculative. Natural selection happens all the time, and we have been direct witnesses of it happening, so why is it not viable? Another part of the argument seems to be that if we do not see it with our own eyes, then we have not really observed it, and so we are reduced to only speculation.
I see that Coelacanth allows for speciation by way of evolution, but will not allow, besides calling it speculation, any evolution that goes beyond what creationist call “kinds.” Not a word that he has used, but really, that is how his debate boils down.
I wonder if he similarly dismisses, at least as speculative, all forensic science. Would he trust a crime lab, for example, to tie an incident that was not directly observed by criminologists but has great forensic evidence to the crime? Or would he call their evidence speculation and therefor weak?
“Your honor, I object! This evidence, compelling as it is, must be regarded as speculative because, while the gun casings might fit the murder weapon, the fingerprints and the DNA evidence are a perfect match, no one at the crime lab was a direct witness to the crime.”
“Objection sustained. I am dismissing this case on the grounds that the criminal investigators extremely compelling evidence is still only speculative because the investigators made no direct observation of the actual event.”
Or how about this?
“Your honor, ninety percent of the scientists agree on who the shooter is, so there must be a confirmation bias. You should dismiss based on the ten percent who don't agree or don't know, because there are less of them being influenced by each other, or the forensic evidence as analyzed by the majority of the scientists working on the case.”
Or how about this?
“Your honor, just because there are transitional fossils between families and orders and such, and even transitionals between species, which should not exist if evolution as it is commonly understood is wrong, what does that prove?”
“Point taken, case dismissed.”
“Your honor, God might have just slipped up a bit when he made our jaws too small to accommodate wisdom teeth. On the other hand, maybe they have a use beyond making oral surgeons lots of money removing them.”
I could go on like this…
Deeply edited so it would make sense to me...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2007 : 10:19:11 [Permalink]
|
Interesting, Kil. I'd not thought of wisdom teeth as vestigial but I suppose that they could be considered as such.
Some flightless beetles have fused wing covers, yet have non-functional wings beneath them.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 13:49:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Why did I clear up the commonly misunderstood word "evolution"?
So it would clear up my understanding of the meaning of the word, of course.
I'm not sure why you decided to reference other creationists in quote of my post, when I specifically cleared up that I did not hold that incorrect view on the meaning. |
All I know is that when you said that to Dude, it didn't look like you were simply clarifying things for yourself. Not to me, at least.| Whether it was 100 Million or 100 Billion doesn't matter, it's whether there's a viable method in doing so, which I fail to see or find. |
So then it's okay to toss around any number?| You've got a strange concept of the science behind the conclusions. |
This goes out to the rest of you that said the same thing...
It's easy to say, but if you don't give reasons why my concept is "strange" (that being an ambiguous word) then your words have no meaning. I know everyone here would think my ideas are strange. Human beings think everything "different" is strange. So lets get back to debating and try not to let our opinions and preconceived ideas get the best of us... Ok?
The same goes for myself. |
Okay, then, right back atcha: your use of "speculative" has become ambiguous, because you apply it to what is probably the best-evidenced, most well-supported theory in the history of modern science. And you seem to be trying to avoid talking about it further.
What is "strange" about your conception of science is that you think it goes from observation to speculation to conclusion. You're leaving out at least the predict, test and confirm portions. Without those parts, vestigal organs wouldn't be evidence for evolution, but since you said they are evidence, you must know that there's more than speculation behind that conclusion.| But that happens all the time. For example, we can watch as the proportions of alleles in a living population change over time. We can see in the fossil record that species appear, thrive, and die out. The evidence isn't speculative, because the evidence is stuff we can see and touch. |
Yes it does happen all the time and people are wrong all the time too... |
How often are people wrong about basic observations (as opposed to hypotheses)?| ...especially in science. That's the definition of science. realigning with the facts. Well I'm just propagating what I know... |
Well, that's not a definition of "science."| As others have indicated, this is news to me, too. |
All news is good news, except bad news. |
To reiterate: would you care to discuss just how God is not speculative?| Oh, it definitely isn't science, so what would it matter if there's evidence? Providing evidence for God, after all, is nothing more than a misguided attempt to give scientific rigor to religion. |
What would it matter? Everything to the truth. |
The truths that science can't find are those for which there can be no unequivocal evidence.| It isn't scientific that Ford makes Ford cars, yet it does matter to say that they do and not that the cars evolved from each other. |
Actually, "Ford automobiles are manufactured by the Ford Motor Company" is a perfectly viable, scientifically testable hypothesis. "Ford makes Ford cars" is a scientific proposition. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 14:04:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
| These experiments were carried out on the supposed completely blind "Mole-Rat" |
Not a big deal just pointing out that it was ambiguous which type of mole rat you meant.
|
You don't know much about the naked mole rat do you?
Do you think perhaps I was talking about the seeing mole rat or the blind mole rat when I said "completely blind 'Mole-Rat'". I'm not sure if we're on the same level of thinking here.
Originally posted by filthy
The problem with 'belief' is that, for the true believer(tm) no supporting evidence is necessary and evidence to the contrary can be easily ignored. |
That's not a problem with belief, that's a problem with people. Someone can believe in evolution without knowing of any of the underlaying facts. It happens to be one of the problems with the world today.
Originally posted by filthy
But tell me, how exactly do you find this speculative? In science, speculations are not published unless labeled as such. The speculator would be figuratively ripped to shreds by his/her peers. |
Oh wait...
It seems I was referencing a different article when I said "vehement". I don't particularly have any problem with Horse evolution. Mutations have been proven to remove features (such as toes in a Horse) and creautures have been shown to have the ability to grow larger as seen in the Lion and Tiger hybrid the Liger. So I tend to agree with that one.
Originally posted by filthy
But never the less, the coccyx and the afore-mentioned eyes and the serpent's lung are all vestigial, as is the dandelion's pollen. |
And I really don't have a problem with anyone believing that, you have been given good reason too, but you see. I don't think creatures evolved one from the other, so I tend to disagree.
Originally posted by filthy
And as for my 'debating etiquette,' well, anyone who takes exception to it is not forced to read it. At this late stage of my life, I am unlikely to change my ways. |
Oh sorry, I was out of place to say what I did.
Originally posted by filthy
Edit: To repeat: just because an organ has some function or other, does not mean that it is not a vestage of what it once was. The coccyx was once a tail and the mole rat's eyes once worked perfectly well, on rodent scale at least. And at one time, the snake's ancestors had two normally functioning lungs, as do the snake-like, legless lizards of today. |
Which is exactly why debating vestiges isn't going to get anywhere.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
That implies a false conclusion, and specious reasoning. It shows you do not indeed yet understand science as it is, only as you were told it is. The fact that the vast majority of scientists in general (and virtually all of those in the biological and geological fields) support evolution cannot be twisted into |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 14:22:25 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth said:
I don't mind if you dismiss my ideas as hand waving. I've said what I wanted and I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. Please, declare me a hand-waver all you want. I assure you it does me no harm.
|
I'll accept that as an admission that you are incapable of actually demonstrating that any of the evidence for evolution is "speculative". Still, I urge you to try.
| Or perhaps it's odd that science hasn't been able to explain the existence of God?... |
Because, in science, you start with some observable fact. There is no observable fact of god, not even an inference that would indicate some omnipotent being. (if you have any, I urge you again to start a thread in the religion folder and share them)
And really, how would you suggest that scientists begin to search for a delusion?
Your irony gland can fill up as much as it wants too, I'm not on a conversion campaign here. I'm just stating what I believe and I don't mind if anyone disagrees with me, becuase in the end no facts contradict with what I say, only opinions.
|
Sure, you come into a skeptics forum, declare that you are a theist and that you think all evidence for evolution is bunk... and you don't care if anyone disagrees with you? Well, that would make you a troll, if true.
No facts contradict what you say? Well, maybe because you refuse to say anything of substance, except to be rude to filthy.
You should really start that thread about evidence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 14:46:20 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth, your doubts are not reasonable.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 15:12:42 [Permalink]
|
'Canth, I'm going to try and clear up a very common misconception; one that we see all too often. I will use myself as an example.
I do not believe in the Theory of Evolution. I merely accept it as the best game in town. If/when another is found and better supported by the existing evidence, I will happily turn my coat, as it were, and never give it a second thought.
| That's not a problem with belief, that's a problem with people. Someone can believe in evolution without knowing of any of the underlaying facts. It happens to be one of the problems with the world today. |
This is true, at least to a point. Even leaving religion out of it, we stumble across beliefs in everything from Nessie to extant dinosaurs (and, ye gods, even pterosaurs!  ), to a flat earth, all with not the least of supporting evidence.
I think that it is a lack of critical thinking. Critical thinking is hard work. You can't just decide on the spot, but must observe all sides of the topic and too few people want to make the effort. Thus, we have to put up with such utter and perpetual crap as the Coso Artifact, the London Hammer, hoked up dino/human footprints, and similiar, ridiculous hoo-hah.
Now, one can believe whatever floats one's boat, but it is wise to carefully examine the whole thing before forming those beliefs and not be swayed by pretty words disguising no substance.
And here's a real speculation: Could abiogenesis have occured in volcanic, hydrothermal vents? Indeed, could it be happening today but with the resulting organisms, for lack of a better word, falling to predation? I dunno either, but it's a thought.
Incidently, England has a very interesting, leg-less lizard called the Slow Worm. It is very similiar to our glass lizards.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 16:19:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Originally posted by HalfMooner
That implies a false conclusion, and specious reasoning. It shows you do not indeed yet understand science as it is, only as you were told it is. The fact that the vast majority of scientists in general (and virtually all of those in the biological and geological fields) support evolution cannot be twisted into an argument against evolution, Coelacanth. |
Actually all these ideas I have come up with are my own. I have not been told any of this. The only things I have been told were things from evolutionist websites. I have read a bit of creationist material here and there and whilst some of them have some good point a lot of them are plain stupid. Everything I have said in this thread is pretty much my own ideas, nothing told to me at all.
I'm not twisting the majority view into something bad, even if I were to call appeal to authority or majority on you all it wouldn't apply because these are their fields of knowledge and their opinions are very much valid, but one thing I do dislike is the apparent factualisation of evolution from fish-to-man. When that is very doubtful in itself in many factors, which don't harm the theory, but it seems pretty much unquestionable in the area of science for fear of poisoning the field with claims of supernatural causes, which aren't actual science at all.
This is how I see it. Evolution is perfect science, but it may not be perfect truth.
|
A disturbing, but all too common distinction, which seems to say, "Facts discovered by science may not really be true."
Of course, science doesn't seek eternal, inerrant "perfect truths" in a religious sense, but I don't think that is the distinction you are raising (is it?), but rather casting a generalized doubt upon knowledge discovered through science. And you've attempted this by what seems a misuse of overgeneralized terms and dodgy baffle-gobble.
(Or perhaps you are trying to split the difference between science and faith and arrive at some kind of inclusive compromise? If so, I think it's not working. I see no stable ground between the natural and the supernatural.)
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I sense there the old "They all believe in evolution, so that shows they are prejudiced" argument. In fact, the very "oneupmanship" which you agree is useful in science assures that any scientist coming up with real evidence that could refute and could demolish the evolution would stand to make him or herself an historic place in science, probably superior to that of Einstein. |
But then he/she would need a replacement theory... and that would be what? That these creatures aren't related to each other?
Evolution has proved one thing and that is that every creature is related in some way or another, whether that be by designer or heritage doesn't matter for now. All we do know is that they are related.
For someone to claim that evolution's claims of them being related isn't true would be impossible. Unless you have a method of which they could?
Anything linking these creatures and saying that they are related scientifically is demonstrating evolution... Why would someone think otherwise.
|
Then I'm delighted you now fully accept the reality of evolution.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Coelacanth, there is a cultural war going on in which religious fundamentalists are attacking rationality itself, in order to further their dreams (our nightmares) of rule by preachers over an ignorant flock. I hope you are able to reclaim your rationality fully. |
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. There's wars going on everywhere for every different reason as long as some faction is involved people will garner sheep. There's race wars, religious wars, tribal wars, politcal wars... anything which separates human beings into groups of which they are called to take sides. That's wars... religions are no exception. For human perception is very weak.
The idea of separating yourself from groups in order to avoid those wars (athiesm etc) is a solemn one working towards the better of mankind, yet they fail to realise that they are only creating another group which only adds to the confusion of the wars. |
Please, no more equating atheists with the very sectarianism they try to abolish.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 16:27:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
You don't know much about the naked mole rat do you?
|
No I don't.
| Do you think perhaps I was talking about the seeing mole rat or the blind mole rat when I said "completely blind 'Mole-Rat'". I'm not sure if we're on the same level of thinking here. |
There's no mole rat called the "seeing mole rat" so you are conflating the terms here, but it works as sarcasm if that was your intent.
Okay so if the "Blind-Mole-Rat" is the only 'supposed completely blind "Mole-Rat"', then I suppose technically you weren't ambiguous but it still wasn't clear to me that you had specified the Spalax genus. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 19:47:05 [Permalink]
|
| Whether it was 100 Million or 100 Billion doesn't matter, it's whether there's a viable method in doing so, which I fail to see or find. |
Me:
Natural selection happens all the time, and we have been direct witnesses of it happening, so why is it not viable? |
Coelacanth:
The fossil record makes a good means of observing it. Along with radioactive readings...
Just incase you didn't know. |
Whatever… So let me ask you again, why is natural selection not a viable explanation?
Originally posted by Kil
I see that Coelacanth allows for speciation by way of evolution, but will not allow, besides calling it speculation, any evolution that goes beyond what creationist call “kinds.” Not a word that he has used, but really, that is how his debate boils down. |
Coelacanth
The only thing I really have problems with evolving is things such as new organs, limbs and intelligence (maybe I've missed something too) really. I've never heard of a "kinds" before. |
An example of “Kinds” would be “canine kind.” Wolves and foxes and dogs can speciate but only a canine will ever evolve from a canine ancestor. Your "problems" with evolving limbs and new organs is that it does the same thing, by setting arbitrary limits on natural selection that are, for whatever reason, acceptable to you. Only, I suppose, and correct me if I'm wrong, you will allow for mammals to evolve new families, but you will not allow reptiles to be ancestral to mammals or birds in your thinking. Or, on a larger scale, (no pun intended) fish to mammals, or anything else at the class level. So, in creationist terms that you don't happen to use, but your “problems” amount to the same thing, “kinds” are at the class level of the family tree.
Me:
I wonder if he similarly dismisses, at least as speculative, all forensic science. Would he trust a crime lab, for example, to tie an incident that was not directly observed by criminologists but has great forensic evidence to the crime? Or would he call their evidence speculation and therefore weak? |
Coelacanth:
Forensic evidence alike scientific evidence isn't infallible, but it's all we have sometimes.
Your analogy is pretty much a strawman Kil... |
Hmmm… Just trying to get to what you consider as speculative.
Coelacanth:
This is another strawman. |
If anything, it's the same strawman.
Originally posted by Kil
Or how about this?
“Your honor, ninety percent of the scientists agree on who the shooter is, so there must be a confirmation bias. You should dismiss based on the ten percent who don't agree or don't know, because there are less of them being influenced by each other, or the forensic evidence as analyzed by the majority of the scientists working on the case.” |
Coelacanth:
That's a strawman, isn't based on what I was saying at all. |
I'll grant you that it was a s |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger
Topic Locked
