View Poll Results: What's your view of the Origin of Life, the Universe, and Everything?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Y.E.C, Intelligent Design or other (post specifics)

    4 11.76%
  • Natural Origin and Evolution

    26 76.47%
  • Something else? (post specifics)

    4 11.76%
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 203

Thread: Evolution vs Y.E.C

  1. #61
    paleologos's Avatar You need burrito love!!
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    8,128

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    @Elfdude:
    I believe the differences on the application of research methods depends on the field of science, not the country.
    Mine is economics.
    There is always a degree of ambiguity in the results of economics research and a great dependence on interpretation, those who say otherwise are more likely than not politically motivated.
    I understand things are more "positive" in biology.

    To cut the long story short, the theory of evolution would be theoretically falsified if a group of a species' individuals appear to manifest a trait that is not supposed to exist, to a statistically significant degree.
    However, no matter what trait we observe, the assumption will always be that because it appears to a statistically significant degree, it must improve the reproductive success of the individuals that have it.
    That's what I mean when I say that it is not possible to come up with a falsifiability test for the theory of evolution.

  2. #62

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    How isn't considering intelligent design useful?

    Well the steam engine existed since ancient greece, doesn't mean it is a useless thing just because it wasn't popular back then. Doesn't mean Leonardo's sketches of machines ahead of his time like the helicopter and war tank were useless either, just appeared with a weird timing.
    ID's main tenet is that species evolve to god's whim, by definition beyond human understanding and without any percievable logical framework that could be used to produce useful results.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Sucessful in what? Define sucessful. I can do my daily life in all its integrity regardless of my opinion on evolution.

    If evolution exists 1) It takes a long time to produce tangible species level effects. Not tangible change in my lifetime.

    (unless there's a huge breakthrough in application of Eugenics program - then game changes)
    Your ignorance is not an excuse. Understanding some aspects of evolution already helped medicine fight many pathogens that evolve so quickly that they can evolve immunity to treatment within years. Some aspects of modern programming are based on evolutionary principles, especially latest AI development.


    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    So intelligent design doens't exist because species were discarded in the evolution game? Is that your point?

    Or do you want to to consider as falsified things that are not falsifiable?
    It's showing how ID sounds even more stupid when compared to real world.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    So the answer is "Yes, snake symbolism is highly related to modern scientific medicine as well" correct?

    I never had the pretention to claim christianism invented the Snake if that's where you're headed.
    You asked, I answered, and since you were linking snake symbolism to Christianity two lines above, I mentioned it. Why'd you ask anyway, it takes 30 secs to look it up.
    Last edited by Katsumoto; August 19, 2018 at 07:28 AM. Reason: personal reference removed

  3. #63
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,126

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    So there is a level of foolishness in trying to cross between realms. There is no theory of everything (in the fullest extent of its meaning) because in the subjective sense there is always the problem of solipsism and all sorts of other problems. These can only be solved subjectively, ie. through religion, arbitrary apriori, ignorance, etc.

    Also you wouldn't want the objective realm to infect your religion. That would eliminate the very possibility of faith in the first place. A faith needs difficult contradictions (or tests of faith) in order to give it vigour and meaning that is separate from mundane arithmetical proofs like 2+2=4. Could you imagine someone having the same feelings you have contemplating the almighty as they contemplate the mere fact that 2+2=4?

    Oh, I forgot the most important part: The thing is, this means religions and science are perfectly compatible. I don't think they're equal, I think religion is a crock of , but that's obviously-self-evidently subjective. They're totally separate, there is no God of the gaps, because God is only relevant to you, personally. It's essentially a coincidence that there is more than one Christian (for example) in the world. I've asked Iskar to explain the rest of this part before but he's a slippery German so he used a bunch of big words and then disappeared for three months and then I ignored his post out of spite. (sorry Iskar). But let's see what he says now.

    Not sure how the subjectivity angle contributes/resolves anything. After all, the gods of human religion must manifest themselves in the same reality humans perceive and study through science.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  4. #64
    Elfdude's Avatar The Blue Spirit
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,339

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    @Elfdude:
    I believe the differences on the application of research methods depends on the field of science, not the country.
    Mine is economics.
    There is always a degree of ambiguity in the results of economics research and a great dependence on interpretation, those who say otherwise are more likely than not politically motivated.
    I understand things are more "positive" in biology.
    I assumed as much but your view of the Null hypothesis was rather odd. I've never heard any scientist claim only the null hypothesis matters. As to whether economics is different than biology, as far as I can tell it shouldn't be, the scientific method is a pretty united front. Economics merely lacks a uniting theory like biology or rather has several competing uniting theories which each fail in their own individual ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    To cut the long story short, the theory of evolution would be theoretically falsified if a group of a species' individuals appear to manifest a trait that is not supposed to exist, to a statistically significant degree.
    However, no matter what trait we observe, the assumption will always be that because it appears to a statistically significant degree, it must improve the reproductive success of the individuals that have it.
    That's what I mean when I say that it is not possible to come up with a falsifiability test for the theory of evolution.
    The assumption will not be that. There's many traits which occur which are unique and deleterious. The "supposed to exist" is not a determination evolution makes. A falsification as I pointed out would be showing that traits do not adapt in response to environment. That's all you'd need to do.
    Last edited by Elfdude; August 10, 2018 at 08:07 PM.
    "Pride is not the antidote of Shame but its source, humility is its only true antidote." - Iroh

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    @ Elfdude, I don't give a for your condescending appraisal of my strategy. You haven't addresses a single point because I think you're unable to. I'm embarrassed for you honestly. Never has somebody so pathetically claimed the moral high ground. Piss poor debating, piss poor. I accept your surrender. Absolutely pathetic. Phalera my ass.
    When all else fails insult your opponents.

  5. #65
    paleologos's Avatar You need burrito love!!
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    8,128

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfdude View Post
    I assumed as much but your view of the Null hypothesis was rather odd. I've never heard any scientist claim only the null hypothesis matters. As to whether economics is different than biology, as far as I can tell it shouldn't be, the scientific method is a pretty united front. Economics merely lacks a uniting theory like biology or rather has several competing uniting theories which each fail in their own individual ways.
    Economics is a social science, experimentation in the natural scale is nigh impossible.
    Historically speaking, it can be argued -and most of the times shown beyond a reasonable doubt- that whenever experiments were attempted, the result was suffering at an unfathomable scale and the corpses stacked up in the millions.
    These are not the kind of experiments you would want to attempt again with tweaked conditions until you get them right.
    There are also the matters of "scientifically based" economic policy, fiscal policy, monetary policy and taxation policy which makes economics and politics conjoined twins.
    Because of the powerful motivations to manipulate research, there are differences in the way the scientific method is applied.


    Quote Originally Posted by Elfdude View Post
    The assumption will not be that.
    There's many traits which occur which are unique and deleterious.
    The "supposed to exist" is not a determination evolution makes.
    A falsification as I pointed out would be showing that traits do not adapt in response to environment.
    That's all you'd need to do.
    So you show that some trait is not adapting in response to an environmental alteration and some other scientist who happens to have tenure and has based his career on evolutionary theory, comes along and claims that the prevalence of the trait is an adaptation to an environmental parameter that you missed.

    I mean, seriously, if we discover a consummate, safe and efficient way to mind-machine interface, are we going to stop growing opposable thumbs?
    And if we continue to grow opposable thumbs, will we have proven that evolutionary theory is wrong, or that opposable thumbs are a vestigial trait?
    These are interesting questions, I believe.

  6. #66
    MaximiIian's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    12,876

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Of course the theory of evolution is true. It's scientific fact. There's no getting around it.
    If your religion contradicts the scientific facts, change your religion. I believe in a multitude of gods, I believe the the natural world is suffused with spirits and gods, and sure I even believe that they had an influence on human society. But I do not think that they consciously guided or designed the evolution of life on earth. That's preposterous. Life developed perfectly fine on its own. So, the creation myths believed in Antiquity become, to me, meaningful but non-literal mythology.

    YEC is not even on my radar, honestly. Christianity and the Bible have nothing to do with my perspective.
    Last edited by MaximiIian; August 11, 2018 at 02:50 AM.

  7. #67
    Elfdude's Avatar The Blue Spirit
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,339

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    So you show that some trait is not adapting in response to an environmental alteration and some other scientist who happens to have tenure and has based his career on evolutionary theory, comes along and claims that the prevalence of the trait is an adaptation to an environmental parameter that you missed.
    This is something which has always struck me as odd. From a scientific perspective, making a new rule is an entirely new theory. It's like adding a piece of a puzzle to a complete puzzle, the picture isn't just the puzzle plus one but something entirely new. Fundamentally this means the old theory was falsified and supplanted with a new one even if it was very similar. So might that happen? Yes. I don't think there's any likeliness of adaptation in response to stimuli ever being fundamentally reversed in this universe just as I don't think we're likely to completely eliminate physics or mathematics or anything else which has uncovered fundamentals. Ultimately without a mechanism like this to sustain life it would be very difficult to explain it's continued survivial.

    I mean there are alternatives. Aristotle proposed that there was an essentialism to each species which was immutable and while variance between those could be sustained or promoted (i.e. one could create an ideal horse) they would never change from their central species. Ultimately aristotle struggled to comprehend of a universe which wasn't entirely described on this planet thus he presumed animals must be some fundamental building block in a way we conceive of atoms. This was the prevailing view for many eons although now it seems rather silly.

    The great chain of being was a christian take on this and from it evolved young earth creationism, it's the idea that all matter was decreed in it's present form by god and itself is immutable.

    Vitalism, the idea that life is governed by some sort of non-physical component (a soul perhaps?) which makes it fundamentally different than inanimate matter.

    Lamarckism, Structuralism, Orthogenesis, etc. Unfortunately all have been widely falsified whereas adaptation in response to environmental stimuli (or rather selection through reproduction) has survived the test of time and grown more and more supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    I mean, seriously, if we discover a consummate, safe and efficient way to mind-machine interface, are we going to stop growing opposable thumbs?
    I fail to see the point you're making here.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    And if we continue to grow opposable thumbs, will we have proven that evolutionary theory is wrong, or that opposable thumbs are a vestigial trait?
    How does the lack of a thumb factor into your reproductive success? My thought is that humans are unlikely to appreciate forms which significantly challenge our concepts of aesthetics which means we will always struggle to appreciate those we see as malformed. Who knows what will happen in thousands of years. I would presume genetic engineering will have allowed us to design ourselves at will which will make evolution largely moot long before we manage a machine which is capable of the processing power of a single human brain. I mean my brain can process as much bandwidth as the entire internet has in one year in less than an hour, and I can already use genetic engineering to selectively alter genes in my kitchen.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    These are interesting questions, I believe.
    I mean, they're interesting what if scenarios. However I fail to see your point. You seem to be frustrated at the adaptive corrective nature of scientific thought. Science rarely discards entire theories of any sort, it makes no sense if your data conforms to your model 99% to throw it out for a 1% exception, you adjust your model. As a economist this should be obvious to you.
    "Pride is not the antidote of Shame but its source, humility is its only true antidote." - Iroh

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    @ Elfdude, I don't give a for your condescending appraisal of my strategy. You haven't addresses a single point because I think you're unable to. I'm embarrassed for you honestly. Never has somebody so pathetically claimed the moral high ground. Piss poor debating, piss poor. I accept your surrender. Absolutely pathetic. Phalera my ass.
    When all else fails insult your opponents.

  8. #68
    paleologos's Avatar You need burrito love!!
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    8,128

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    @Elfdude:
    I am getting the feeling that you pretend to be missing my point.
    I am trying to understand what form a falsifiability test for the theory of evolution would take.
    How do you design that experiment specifically, not vaguely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfdude View Post
    A falsification as I pointed out would be showing that traits do not adapt in response to environment.
    That's all you'd need to do.

    So, how do you do it?
    What is this experiment and how would it test for any specific trait in response to changes in a controlled environment?


    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    So you show that some trait is not adapting in response to an environmental alteration and some other scientist who happens to have tenure and has based his career on evolutionary theory, comes along and claims that the prevalence of the trait is an adaptation to an environmental parameter that you missed.
    What I meant by that is:
    Say an experimenter decides to design an experiment to test whether a trait would adapt to environmental changes.
    They choose a species and in that species a trait and start making alterations to the environment and expect to see an adaptation as in a change in the statistical frequency that the trait appears in successive generations of that species.
    They observe no adaptations.
    They claim the species is not evolving.
    They claim they have falsified the theory of evolution.
    They subject their results to peer review and the critique starts coming in:
    The trait being tested continues to appear in the next generations of the tested species in the same statistical frequency because the environmental parameter that was tweaked was not the correct one.
    If the experimenter had chosen a different environmental parameter to tweak then the species being tested would show signs of adaptation in the trait being tested.
    So, evolution still stands.


    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    I mean, seriously, if we discover a consummate, safe and efficient way to mind-machine interface, are we going to stop growing opposable thumbs?
    And if we continue to grow opposable thumbs, will we have proven that evolutionary theory is wrong, or that opposable thumbs are a vestigial trait?
    These are interesting questions, I believe.
    What I meant by that:
    Imagine a future society in which we interface our brains with our networked computers directly so there is no need for keyboards, mouses, screens or speakers.
    And our computers are connected to robots that do everything for people.
    One would expect to observe significant biological adaptations to a situation where human bodies are redundant, except for sex.
    No such observations are made.
    So a scientist claims this is proof that evolution no longer applies.
    Another scientist claims that human physique has become a vestigial trait, so evolution still applies.

    My point is that no matter what observations we make, an explanation can always be produced to fit the observations within the evolutionary frame.


    Quote Originally Posted by Elfdude View Post
    Science rarely discards entire theories of any sort, it makes no sense if your data conforms to your model 99% to throw it out for a 1% exception, you adjust your model.
    That's exactly what I am trying to say.
    So it seems to me that it is impossible to show that "traits do not adapt in response to environment".

  9. #69

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Legend View Post
    Demanding everyone to either believe or disbelieve in evolution strikes me as a religious inquisition,...
    It only led to antibiotics...they seem to be perfectly willing to believe it when they're hacking up a bad cough...
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  10. #70
    Elfdude's Avatar The Blue Spirit
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,339

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    @Elfdude:
    I am getting the feeling that you pretend to be missing my point.
    I am trying to understand what form a falsifiability test for the theory of evolution would take.
    How do you design that experiment specifically, not vaguely.
    You design it in exactly the same way as designs have been indicated from you. Forgive me, maybe I'm giving you too much credit because I can't understand what you're missing here. The test which would provide evidence for adaptation would also provide evidence for a lack of adaptation.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    So, how do you do it?
    What is this experiment and how would it test for any specific trait in response to changes in a controlled environment?
    We could choose literally any trait, for example eye color. Expose a creature to conditions which favor reproductive success (or hinder it) and see what happens. You would expect adaptation.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    What I meant by that is:
    Say an experimenter decides to design an experiment to test whether a trait would adapt to environmental changes.
    They choose a species and in that species a trait and start making alterations to the environment and expect to see an adaptation as in a change in the statistical frequency that the trait appears in successive generations of that species.
    They observe no adaptations.
    They claim the species is not evolving.
    They claim they have falsified the theory of evolution.
    They subject their results to peer review and the critique starts coming in:
    The trait being tested continues to appear in the next generations of the tested species in the same statistical frequency because the environmental parameter that was tweaked was not the correct one.
    If the experimenter had chosen a different environmental parameter to tweak then the species being tested would show signs of adaptation in the trait being tested.
    This hypothetical situation is entirely different. What you're complaining about is another scientist submitting an alternative hypothesis which would also require data and testing to be confirmed. Why is that an issue? Evolution does not define how a trait and an environmental condition are related, it's rather common for humans to make assumptions about why a trait is favored which eventually show to have nothing to do with it. Ultimately the only traits which will show adaptation are traits which affect reproductive success.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    So, evolution still stands.
    So let's pretend that scientist A in your scenario had scientist B repeat his experiment and to his astonishment scientist A's assertion was true, adaptation was not occuring in response to reproductive success, many other scientists repeated the scenario and found it wasn't occuring. What science would do is create a new theory which included the exception but also included the successful explanation of prior data.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    What I meant by that:
    Imagine a future society in which we interface our brains with our networked computers directly so there is no need for keyboards, mouses, screens or speakers.
    And our computers are connected to robots that do everything for people.
    One would expect to observe significant biological adaptations to a situation where human bodies are redundant, except for sex.
    Adaptation occurs in response to reproductive success. It does not occur in response to whether or not a trait is "useful" in a traditional sense. Usefulness only manifests insofar as it leads to reproductive success.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    No such observations are made.
    So a scientist claims this is proof that evolution no longer applies.
    Another scientist claims that human physique has become a vestigial trait, so evolution still applies.
    Look dude, you seem to think you're making a point but all you're doing is paraphrasing scientific discourse. Vestigial traits are traits left over from prior structures or organs in a lineage which are degenerate or non-functioning. For example the hip bones in a whale or the leg spurs on a snake. Calling a functioning thumb vestigial is stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    My point is that no matter what observations we make, an explanation can always be produced to fit the observations within the evolutionary frame.
    Your point is wrong, again all we'd need to do is show that variance in reproductive success does not promote adaptation. I don't know how else to simplify this for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    That's exactly what I am trying to say.
    So it seems to me that it is impossible to show that "traits do not adapt in response to environment".
    Just as it's "impossible" to show that sometimes objects fall up?

    Look buddy, whether or not something is falsifiable does not have anything to do with whether the universe will allow it to be falsified. It has to do with whether or not were the data to show the opposite would the theory be falsified. Yes the data we see confirms reproductive advantage leads to adaptation. Yes, the data COULD show that reproductive advantage does not lead to adaptation. But it doesn't. Throwing out an entire theory is not something science often does even when a theory is falsified because a theory is a body of many hypotheses which have been independently confirmed many many many times. Talking about evolution not being falsifiable in the way you seem to desire it to be falsifiable is destroying what falsifiability means in science because now no theory by your definition can be falsified because your concept of falsification is arbitrary and useless. That's not how science operates. It's not how economics operates. It's not how math operates. It's not how logic operates.
    "Pride is not the antidote of Shame but its source, humility is its only true antidote." - Iroh

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    @ Elfdude, I don't give a for your condescending appraisal of my strategy. You haven't addresses a single point because I think you're unable to. I'm embarrassed for you honestly. Never has somebody so pathetically claimed the moral high ground. Piss poor debating, piss poor. I accept your surrender. Absolutely pathetic. Phalera my ass.
    When all else fails insult your opponents.

  11. #71
    paleologos's Avatar You need burrito love!!
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    8,128

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    @Elfdude:
    There is obviously some communication difficulty here.
    I am neither complaining nor arguing.
    I am trying to understand the details of a potential falsifiability experimental methodology in the context of evolutionary theory.
    I am certainly not complaining about "the universe not allowing evolutionary theory to be falsified".

    If it seems to me (maybe I am missing a lot) that evolutionary theory provides it's adherents resources (greater than other theories/sciences) to "move the goalpost", should I not point that out?
    If anything, it would give you the chance to clear any uncertainties.

    But we do need to communicate for that to become feasible.
    Calling each other stupid does not help any case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfdude View Post
    ...all we'd need to do is show that variance in reproductive success does not promote adaptation.
    Elaborate on that.

  12. #72

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    I don't know if life was created or simply appeared through a natural origin, but evolution is scientifically proven.
    Then again, evolution itself could be a intentionally created mechanism.
    Like giving an AI the mechanism of improving himself, without further human intervention. Which is something we are already working on.

    What I'm saying is that we could be all accidents, results of chaotic and random phenomena, energy converted into matter, matter converted into life.
    But there could also be god like beings out there, entities who can control/create life, matter or maybe even energy. Entities who could manipulate time itself.
    There could be entities outside our own universe, who could control entire universes, creating/destroying/manipulating them at will.

    Unfortunately, it's unlikely we will ever know the truth. It's also highly probably that we might not be able to understand it, even if it was shown right before our eyes.
    Last edited by Bethrezen; August 13, 2018 at 02:51 AM.

  13. #73
    Elfdude's Avatar The Blue Spirit
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,339

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    If it seems to me (maybe I am missing a lot) that evolutionary theory provides it's adherents resources (greater than other theories/sciences) to "move the goalpost", should I not point that out?
    If anything, it would give you the chance to clear any uncertainties.

    You can point that out but all you've used to base this conclusion is misunderstandings of what evolution is. If you don't know where the goal posts are in the first place certainly it may seem that way. However I see no justification of that. Calling reworking a scientific theory moving the goalposts is a gross misunderstanding of the adaptive process of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    But we do need to communicate for that to become feasible.
    Calling each other stupid does not help any case.

    No one has called anyone stupid as far as I'm aware.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Elaborate on that.
    Since evolution is essentially that variance in reproductive success leads to increase or decreases in the frequency of traits related to said success showing that there's plurality of variance in reproductive success but no changes in trait frequency of the population could potentially falsify the theory of Evolution's "main" hypothesis. Verification and duplication of said experiment would of course be done but if the data was robust and solid we would suddenly need to figure out what the heck happened and why we were wrong. I don't really know what's the difficulty here.
    "Pride is not the antidote of Shame but its source, humility is its only true antidote." - Iroh

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    @ Elfdude, I don't give a for your condescending appraisal of my strategy. You haven't addresses a single point because I think you're unable to. I'm embarrassed for you honestly. Never has somebody so pathetically claimed the moral high ground. Piss poor debating, piss poor. I accept your surrender. Absolutely pathetic. Phalera my ass.
    When all else fails insult your opponents.

  14. #74
    paleologos's Avatar You need burrito love!!
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    8,128

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfdude View Post

    ...

    Since evolution is essentially that variance in reproductive success leads to increase or decreases in the frequency of traits related to said success showing that there's plurality of variance in reproductive success but no changes in trait frequency of the population could potentially falsify the theory of Evolution's "main" hypothesis. Verification and duplication of said experiment would of course be done but if the data was robust and solid we would suddenly need to figure out what the heck happened and why we were wrong.
    ...
    Ok, I'm satisfied, thanks.
    This also show how useful it is to have definitions early on in the conversation.

  15. #75
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,126

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    If someone hasn't already, it might for this discussion be useful to highlight what the observations are and what the theory that might explain it. The observations come from the biology of species alive today and from the fossil record. The observations show living organisms past and present to be organized in a "tree of life", in which any two species, if you go back far enough, have a common ancestor.

    The observations necessarily are discrete ones. The theory of natural selection is a proposed mechanism by which the branching takes place.

    What about this is and is not up for debate? The tree of life as a whole certainly is not. Lifeforms have been branching from common ancestors and still do today. The only way out of that amounts to rejecting the axiom of science that what we observe today must have come about through processes that obey the same natural laws that apply today (cf geological actualism). If there's debate it might concern the exact shape of the tree in some place where observations are scarce.

    Causality is always going to be hard to prove when you cannot experiment on the scale of the subject. Experimental research will always require extrapolating beyond the data, as it were. Natural selection can and probably has been proven as a mechanism, but it's always going to be debatable how much of the tree of life it accounts for. We know there are other factors at work as well.

    Still I don't really see how that remaining debate is of relevant in a discussion about religious dogma. AFAIK no religion postulates ongoing diversification of species, including the transience of mankind by whatever mechanism and so they have nothing to offer in terms of the 'why' of it all.
    Last edited by Muizer; August 13, 2018 at 04:24 PM.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  16. #76
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,466

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Just a point, evolutionary theory isn't a proven fact, its an unfalsified theory. It is a stab at explaining data using scientific method. It allows for moving goalposts because its falsifiable, it doesn't "break" when it meets a contradiction, it is required to explain the contradiction. There have been multiple theories of evolution, contradicting one another, for example Darwin theorised some stuff that's been discarded in the current versions, and IIRC one or two points of Mr Lanarck's once discredited approach have made a comeback (something about some species having evolved an ability to positively acquire traits).

    Faith requires no fasifiability. Science requires faith in the idea we can repeat one another's observations and experiments, so faith is part of science too. Maybe there'll be a scientific test for to disprove solipsism one day.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  17. #77
    paleologos's Avatar You need burrito love!!
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    8,128

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Elfdude is going to self-immolate.

  18. #78
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,768

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    Not sure how the subjectivity angle contributes/resolves anything. After all, the gods of human religion must manifest themselves in the same reality humans perceive and study through science.
    Well yes and no: The entire base of religion and faith would be utterly undermined. If religious matters could be decided by science: religion would cease to exist that very moment. Faith is rendered absurd in such a schema. It's a fatal contradiction. There is a requirement to separate the realms that humans experience, or realities as you called them. The objective, scientific realm of mere matter, chemicals and ones and zeroes, etc.; and the subjective realm of engagement, being, existence, music, poetry, art, love, feelings, passions, the irrational, faith, religion etc.

    These are inherently contradictory. Separating them appropriately solves almost everything. And it can't be said to be an issue that afflicts only the religious, it affects all rational creatures as we are also inherently irrational simultaneously. The vainglorious attempts by various thinkers and scientists to simply eradicate or suppress the subjective realm have uniformly ended in failure. The only idea that can work is separation, we don't even have the language to bridge the worlds, thought of bridging is doomed to failure. Discussions on such issues are incomprehensible messes as this very thread testifies.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  19. #79
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,126

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    Well yes and no: The entire base of religion and faith would be utterly undermined. If religious matters could be decided by science: religion would cease to exist that very moment. Faith is rendered absurd in such a schema. It's a fatal contradiction.
    To be clear, when I say "the gods of human religion must manifest themselves in the same reality humans perceive and study through science" I do not say they must be encompassed in their entirety by it. Just that at the very least they must interface, or else they would not be (capable of) observing, much less intervening in or creating, the physical realm. It just doesn't fly to claim sciene and religion concern separate subjects and yet tacitly assume gods, in their interaction with the physical realm, can bypass the laws of nature entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    There is a requirement to separate the realms that humans experience, or realities as you called them. The objective, scientific realm of mere matter, chemicals and ones and zeroes, etc.; and the subjective realm of engagement, being, existence, music, poetry, art, love, feelings, passions, the irrational, faith, religion etc. These are inherently contradictory. Separating them appropriately solves almost everything. And it can't be said to be an issue that afflicts only the religious, it affects all rational creatures as we are also inherently irrational simultaneously. The vainglorious attempts by various thinkers and scientists to simply eradicate or suppress the subjective realm have uniformly ended in failure. The only idea that can work is separation, we don't even have the language to bridge the worlds, thought of bridging is doomed to failure. Discussions on such issues are incomprehensible messes as this very thread testifies.
    Sounds a bit like you're reducing religion to linguistics, because by the same token the concepts "tree" and "chair" belong to the realm of religion.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  20. #80

    Default Re: Evolution vs Y.E.C

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    Your ignorance is not an excuse. Understanding some aspects of evolution already helped medicine fight many pathogens that evolve so quickly that they can evolve immunity to treatment within years. Some aspects of modern programming are based on evolutionary principles, especially latest AI development.

    It's showing how ID sounds even more stupid when compared to real world.
    So no actual point against intelligent design other than emotional name calling? Ok

    I respect you having one's own Zeal and Faith in Evolution as understood by early XXI century knowledge, pretending we are on the final frontier of knowledge for humanity and no new gamechanging theory will be discovered.

    People need to believe in something I guess.
    Last edited by Katsumoto; August 19, 2018 at 07:28 AM. Reason: continuity
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •