Vicious Love

Science?

deadman_932

Drugs? Brain injury? Samurai has me all confuzzled.

Worldtraveller

Is that whole long screed too much to submit to FSTDT? What's the word limit for a single entry??

Carry on....

Cheers,
Lane

Djugashvillain

What samurai seems to be saying is that scientists who study evolution gain their evidence of evolution by non-natural means, though he doesn't go into any detail on what these non-natural means are exactly. As for his definition of naturalism, I've never seen one more idiosyncratic and vague. Samurai appears to demand that we somehow 'speak' with nature or, better yet, become the things we're trying to study and ask them their own opinion on their physical character, origins and behaviour--geologists talking to rocks, marine biologists chatting with algae and shrimp, and chemists interrogating rare isotopes before their half-lifes expire. Though I'm not quite sure whether samurai is actually advocating this approach or imprecating scientists for taking part in it (which I'm pretty sure they don't, unless you're the kookier end of a Renaissance magus).

My question is the same as TomboyMom's: What do you mean 'speak'? Sediment has no way to vocalise, nor do tape-worms or viruses; how, then, do we 'literally speak' with them? Some sort of telepathy? Does God speak for them, or translate?

JetBlckNewYr03

I don't know about you guys, but after reading those incoherent, boarderline retarded posts, I'm fully convinced that... wait, what the hell is the OP's point again? That evolution is "supernatural" or we shouldn't call evolution "evolution" but "interrelatedness" ? I'm at a loss for words.

Avatar

Samurai has done what I have predicted: He has shamed his screen name.

mung bean

He must commit seppuku, preferably before posting again.

Oolon Colluphid

Oh boy, you guys have had fun without me haven't you?
Erwin Schrödinger would beg to differ.
Yup, I see something round in your straw man here. A ring of muscles, in fact.
Do you not think we are animals then?

We are:

• Eukaryotes
• Metazoans
• Bilaterians
• Deuterostomes
• Chordates
• Craniates
• Vertebrates
• Gnathostomes
• Sarcopterygians
• Tetrapods
• Amniotes
• Synapsids
• Therapsids
• Mammals
• Eutherians
• Primates
• Catarrines
• Hominids

Please name one bone, muscle, tissue, biochemical pathway or any other anatomical feature we possess that chimpanzees lack.
And get an Argumentum ab Populum? What's the point of that?
I've no idea what yer on about, but as it seems to be something to do with language, I'll note that animals talk to each other really rather well. Is it just syntactic language that separates us?
Some more clearly than others.
Tell you what. I am convinced that starfish have evolved from 'lower' (used advisedly) forms of animals. So I'll ask them, and predict I'll get a more coherent answer than what you're providing.

Jet Black

actually, he didn't. it seems that your understanding of the history and development of evolution is as flawed as your understanding of evolution itself. notice that Darwin took his voyage on the beagle from 1831 - 1836, and yet On the Origins of Species was not published until 1859, some 23 years later. Substantial amounts of study went in to development of the theory, not just the finches, but many other species from plants through to worms.

Djugashvillain

Oolon's post just made me realise that samurai's theory is just a uniquely sophistic and incongruous justification of the argumentum ad populum fallacy: if you ask humans where they think they came from and they say they were specially created by God then that is the authoritative truth, with the absurd implication that all natural objects have complete knowledge of themselves.