Evolution is Fact

[C1ay]

Well Univac, you've stated your hypothesis. Now show us some proof. You did read the rules here right?

[InfiniteNow]

There is a differance between...

 

All you've done with your post is to make completely unsupportable assertions which demonstrate both your blind allegiance to some imaginary celestial dictator and falsehood laden childish fairy tales which are taught as absolute truth, as well as your inability to spell. Your post also had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion. You're battin' a thousand there, chief. :D

[Moontanman]

I think this is very interesting:hyper:

 

Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests - being-human - 27 May 2008 - New Scientist

[Isomotopes]

Evolution is of course inevitably true look at humans our relationship to apes is far to close to be chance yet we are not the same we have changed slightly and become more intelligent and more adaptable. Yet in terms of how we evolved is very hard to imagine and what triggered that change no-one knows

[Pyrotex]

...God is the reason of intention and all creation are reconciled to him through the reconciliation Christ Jesus, Yes we are all energy cells (electrons a negative electric charge) God is the (nucleus) as christ is (proton neutron).the Alpha and the Omega....

univac, you are preaching. Please read our rules.

And you are spouting (for lack of a better word) gibberish. Please read our rules.

 

Pyro

[Pyrotex]

Evolution is of course inevitably true...Yet in terms of how we evolved is very hard to imagine and what triggered that change no-one knows

Isomotopes,

I have heard many say that they cannot imagine how evolution could happen, how changes could be triggered, how species could split, and so forth. And yet I find that I can imagine all this quite easily. And I am not alone in this.

 

I think the difference between the two groups is this: the first group is stuck with taxonomic reifism. What's that, you may ask. Thank you, I will explain.

 

Taxonomy is the "science" (actually an organizational discipline) of naming plants and animals--while grouping them in hierarchies according to their similarities. So all "dogs" are grouped among the Canines, and together with horses and humans, are all grouped among the Mammals, etc. It is taxonomy that defines "species"--it does this principally by choosing which animals belong IN the species and which do not.

 

Reifism comes from the word "reify"--to regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence. A "species" is an abstraction, an arbitrary organizational and naming convention that we impose upon Life as we know it. To believe that a "species" is a cast-in-concrete partition separating one kind of Life eternally from all other kinds, is taxonomic reifism.

 

An excellent expression of taxonomic reifism is the modern interpretation of the verse in the Old Testament where God declares that "every animal shall reproduce after its own kind". This is taken to mean that a dog is a "DOG" and no matter how you change its fur color or the shape of its ears or its size, it is still a "DOG". This assumes that there is some property of DOGNESS or DOGOSITY that is eternal and independent of our mortal perceptions.

 

That is not true. Taxonomy is a human derived structure, a linguistic structure, based upon our all-too-fallible perceptions and cultural assumptions. There is NO DOGNESS. The only reason we consider a chihuahua to be in the "Dog" species is because: (1) we know that the predecessors of chihuahuas were indeed "dogs", and (2) we're too lazy or unconcerned to consider whether or not the appearance of the animal is so far removed from the norm (not to mention its questionable ability to mate with real dogs in the wild) that the nomenclature "chihuahua" should be raised to the status of a new species name.

 

Despite appearances, we do NOT classify hyenas as "Dogs".

 

There is NO DOGNESS in Nature. There are NO species boundaries in Nature. A strand of DNA is not "marked" or bounded or limited to "Dog" or "Cat" or "Horse". The DNA simply procreates whatever it is programmed to procreate in a given placental environment. With variation.

 

Technically speaking, animals do NOT reproduce after their own kind. Unless you got an animal that creates clones of itself, like many bacteria.

 

Over geologic time (thousands of generations), what an animal eventually looks like and how it behaves is a function of random variations and non-random Natural Selection by the animal's physical environment and ecological environment. It is a "drunkard's walk" through the phase space of all genomic possibilities. "Where it goes, nobody knows."

 

If there are NO reified species boundaries, then it is not difficult to imagine how animals and plants can evolve and change and reformulate themselves in response to external forces--and those changes are themselves without limits, given enough Deep Time.

[InfiniteNow]

I love you, man. :shrug:

 

Profound and still accessible. Well done, sir. ;)

[REASON]

Over geologic time (thousands of generations), what an animal eventually looks like and how it behaves is a function of random variations and non-random Natural Selection by the animal's physical environment and ecological environment. It is a "drunkard's walk" through the phase space of all genomic possibilities. "Where it goes, nobody knows."

 

But Pyro, doesn't this mean we humans aren't special? :shrug: I can't accept that. I can't. We have to be special, otherwise we're not really important. I refuse to believe such things. (hand up, turn away, refuse, deny, avoid, scoff, resist)

 

In the Bible, God says we're the chosen ones. We are created in his image. I like the sound of that better. Why shouldn't I believe that instead?

 

 

P.S. I tried to rep your post above but couldn't yet. Damn!

[freeztar]

P.S. I tried to rep your post above but couldn't yet. Damn!

 

Don't worry, he got rep for it. :shrug:

It is indeed a beautiful post, highly rep-able.

[coldcreation]

.

 

 

Yes, very nice post Pyro.

I wanted to add something but couldn't think of anything.

 

You said it all.

 

“To dispute with a drunkard is to debate with an empty house”

Publilius Syrus quote

(Roman author, 1st century B.C.)

 

 

“He is a drunkard who takes more than three glasses though he be not drunk.”

Epictetus quote

(Greek philosopher associated with the Stoics, AD 55-c.135)

 

 

CC

[Isomotopes]

Isomotopes,

I have heard many say that they cannot imagine how evolution could happen, how changes could be triggered, how species could split, and so forth. And yet I find that I can imagine all this quite easily. And I am not alone in this.

 

I think the difference between the two groups is this: the first group is stuck with taxonomic reifism. What's that, you may ask. Thank you, I will explain.

 

Taxonomy is the "science" (actually an organizational discipline) of naming plants and animals--while grouping them in hierarchies according to their similarities. So all "dogs" are grouped among the Canines, and together with horses and humans, are all grouped among the Mammals, etc. It is taxonomy that defines "species"--it does this principally by choosing which animals belong IN the species and which do not.

 

Reifism comes from the word "reify"--to regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence. A "species" is an abstraction, an arbitrary organizational and naming convention that we impose upon Life as we know it. To believe that a "species" is a cast-in-concrete partition separating one kind of Life eternally from all other kinds, is taxonomic reifism.

 

An excellent expression of taxonomic reifism is the modern interpretation of the verse in the Old Testament where God declares that "every animal shall reproduce after its own kind". This is taken to mean that a dog is a "DOG" and no matter how you change its fur color or the shape of its ears or its size, it is still a "DOG". This assumes that there is some property of DOGNESS or DOGOSITY that is eternal and independent of our mortal perceptions.

 

That is not true. Taxonomy is a human derived structure, a linguistic structure, based upon our all-too-fallible perceptions and cultural assumptions. There is NO DOGNESS. The only reason we consider a chihuahua to be in the "Dog" species is because: (1) we know that the predecessors of chihuahuas were indeed "dogs", and (2) we're too lazy or unconcerned to consider whether or not the appearance of the animal is so far removed from the norm (not to mention its questionable ability to mate with real dogs in the wild) that the nomenclature "chihuahua" should be raised to the status of a new species name.

 

Despite appearances, we do NOT classify hyenas as "Dogs".

 

There is NO DOGNESS in Nature. There are NO species boundaries in Nature. A strand of DNA is not "marked" or bounded or limited to "Dog" or "Cat" or "Horse". The DNA simply procreates whatever it is programmed to procreate in a given placental environment. With variation.

 

Technically speaking, animals do NOT reproduce after their own kind. Unless you got an animal that creates clones of itself, like many bacteria.

 

Over geologic time (thousands of generations), what an animal eventually looks like and how it behaves is a function of random variations and non-random Natural Selection by the animal's physical environment and ecological environment. It is a "drunkard's walk" through the phase space of all genomic possibilities. "Where it goes, nobody knows."

 

If there are NO reified species boundaries, then it is not difficult to imagine how animals and plants can evolve and change and reformulate themselves in response to external forces--and those changes are themselves without limits, given enough Deep Time.

 

 

This is a theory not fact.

In the way i said that it ias hard to imagine i meant that we do not know every stage that happened to make humans like we are.

[HydrogenBond]

I understand how evolution works in terms of the consensus theory based on random changes that gives advantage, but what I was saying things can also de-evolve on a objective scale. For example, there is delta of a river that is normally marshy. But do to continuing drought natural selection cause some plants to appear from the previous plants that do better in this new drier environment. They have evolved selective advantage. Now the weather patterns shifts and now this new top of the hill plant is now at the bottom of the hill in terms of selective advantage. The plants that never evolved, for dry tolerance, which lost their advantage, for a few centuries are now back in top of the hill but simply doing nothing but just hanging in there. If the weather pattern shifted again, then the king of the hill may shift back. The existing theory is sort of a two-head coin. No matter how it falls it is always selective advantage and evolution. It seems sort of irrational.

 

I believe in directed evolution with a goal in mind. Consider the opposing thumb that some higher animals like apes have. This didn't come into full functional or elaborate use until later. It was a prototype feature that offered a future payoff. Or another way to look at it is, what functional use would this have given the first mutant recipients that allowed them to change the entire gene pool? If it popped up spontaneously, the first one recipient had to also be top big dog, with this vulnerable dangle thing.

 

it logically started out only semi-functional or useless, since it requires muscles, nerves and brain wiring. Its full hidden advantage would not happen until the future. Apes did not sequently evolve mating rights based on thumb wars, yet carrying this over was pivotal to humans. One may say the first thumbed ape picked up a stick and could win mating battles. But this assumes an advanced state of it being functional, immediately.

[Pyrotex]

This is a theory not fact.

In the way i said that it ias hard to imagine i meant that we do not know every stage that happened to make humans like we are.

Isomotopes,

you have no idea what a "theory" is.

 

You use the word "theory" like it was synomous with "false", or like it was an insult.

 

Until you can convince me you can use the word responsibly, you are henceforth forbidden to use the word "theory". In its place, you may use the word, "fnortner". As in: "This is a fnortner, not a fact."

 

Pyrotex / Moderator

[REASON]

I believe in directed evolution with a goal in mind.

 

Really? And who or what do you suppose is providing the direction?

 

You're barking up a tree without a paddle here, HB. :hihi:

[Thunderbird]

Really? And who or what do you suppose is providing the direction?

 

You're barking up a tree without a paddle here, HB. :hihi:

 

 

When one looks at the evolution of life in the context a binding energetic systems that then bind ever finer linkages, awareness being the highest, it seems to me evolution does indeed have a directional path just as water flows down hill, life seems to trend toward....searching for energy using this energy to create.. more complexity with all its worth and .. well... the best word I can come up with is to purchase an autonomy or even more accurate a freedom with the energy that it binds itself to. Life feels itself.... it seeks that which can retain this inner feeling, this intent.

 

Its a bid for freedom every creature makes a bid by investing in a particular energetic relationships. The good paths can lead to futures of yet more connections that allow for even more freedoms , while others lead to dead ends. One human life can be encompassed in this same way. You want to understand the intent of evolution look inside, its the same in us as in an elephant, or a slime mold.

[freeztar]

That read like an excerpt from a Castaneda book titled "Don Juan on Evolution". :hihi:

[Thunderbird]

That read like an excerpt from a Castaneda book titled "Don Juan on Evolution". :hihi:

 

The "Missing the Point" fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument appear to lead up to one particular conclusion but then a completely different conclusion is drawn.

 

 

 

 

The "Red Herring" fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to some totally different issue. Sticking to the topic of the argument will minimize the impact of this fallacy.

 

 

 

 

The "Hasty Generalization" fallacy occurs when there is a likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group.

 

 

 

 

The "Ad Hominem" fallacy occurs when an arguer's comments appeal to feelings or prejudices as opposed to logic. It also occurs when an arguer moves a discussion to a personal level through character assassination or personal attacks.

 

 

 

 

The "Suppressed Evidence" fallacy is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent.

 

In my own words..... do you realize how many respected scholars and authors use these types of phases since Castanada ? Is what I said a valid veiwpoint or not?