Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dk · 09-26-2002, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Camaban:


A little thought would have led you to realise that what was meant there was features that are more or less exclusive to those major groups. (IE, Wings, Gills, feathers, etc etc etc)

Technicalities might win a case in court, but somewhere like here, someone who relies on technicalities is just seen as stretching.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Camaban ]

The definition is more or less silly, for example

P1: bats have wings,
P2: birds have wings,
C: bats are transitional forms of birds.

P1: some bats use radar
P2: some whales use sonar
C: bats are transitional forms of whales

P1: whales swim
P2: fish swim
C: fish are transitional forms of whales.

Xixax · 09-26-2002, 10:12 AM

The only thing that is silly is your cartoon potrayal of what you took from his argument on transitions.

You continue to post relentlessly on the 'cultural benefits' of evolution. Perhaps you would like to explain to me what cultural benefits gravity has displayed? In what way has gravity shaped the morality of our youth?

It's not the fault of the science that some place moral and ethical burdens on it, but the fault of the person placing the burdens.

In your case, you dislike evolution, not because the evidence is lacking, but because:

1) The Civil Rights movement
2) Seemingly degenerative morals and ethics in society ( which is arguable, considering on a statistical basis it's the reporting and sensationalization of acts that is increasing, not the acts of crime themselves )
3) It doesn't YET fully explain to you why you feel 'love' when you see that special someone on Saturday.

1) I'm not aware of any real connection between Civil Rights and evolution. On a philosophical note, maybe the fact that it affirms we are all human with a common ancestor that somehow backs equal rights ( as if finding we were from different species or ancestors would nullify their right to pursue happiness and have liberty ).

2) The morals of society are doing just fine. I think over taxation and forced charity is lowering the willingness of individuals to personally contribute to society, but I hardly think the morality is declining. The media has monetary reasons to exaggerate and sensationalize events, so it may appear that way. I think we're advancing quite honestly, with many giving up the punishment/reward system espoused by religion and moving into a day when hopefully reason is used to determine those issues. Hopefully then we won't be as ignorant and post punishments for things that are personal lifestyle choices when the only support for it being a crime is a antiquated book of mythology.

3) It answers more of why we are as we are than any religion can hope to. Why? Because it relies on testable and repeatable claims. Biology has answered critical questions, allowing medicines that can actually alter your personality mildly. If that isn't enough evidence of the biological nature of emotions, I'm not sure what would convince you.

Evolution will be the backbone of genetic sciences ( you continue to act as if genetics is somehow separate from evolution, when really it's only a subset ) and advancements in the future. The ability to identify and fix genetic irregularities before they are allowed to blossom into a disease or defect will come directly from evolutionary insights. Just because you personally draw a mystical line between micro and macro evolution doesn't mean one exists. Even when it results in speciation, you then pass it off as, "Well, the ability to breed with each other doesn't define a species".

Would you care to say what does? What if two organisms had nearly identical anatomies and physical appearance, yet genetically were unable to reproduce... would they be the same species? If you could somehow reliably take physical characteristics and make a comparison numerically between 'species' you consider ( for lack of a better word ) to be the same 'kind', would that then also force us into the same 'kind' as chimpanzees and other apes?

You mostly seem intent on rambling and injecting verbose sentences in a feeble attempt to win credibility for your arguments.

A hamster with a dictionary and thesaurus is still a hamster.

echidna · 09-26-2002, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xixax:
A hamster with a dictionary and thesaurus is still a hamster.

Ah yes, but he has a dictionary and a thesaurus.

dk · 09-26-2002, 09:07 PM

Xixax: The only thing that is silly is your cartoon portrayal of what you took from his argument on transitions.
dk- :I merely wish to point out the lack of transitional forms found in the fossil record. End of story.
Xixax: - You continue to post relentlessly on the 'cultural benefits' of evolution. Perhaps you would like to explain to me what cultural benefits gravity has displayed? In what way has gravity shaped the morality of our youth?
dk: Gravity shapes everything from toilets to table manners, as anyone with a spotted shirt, blouse or trousers will confirm.
Xixax: It's not the fault of the science that some place moral and ethical burdens on it, but the fault of the person placing the burdens.
dk: I agree, science suffers. That�s been one of my major themes. This thread started out on the Separation Of Church And State board and got moved here. Public schools popularize evolution with cartoons, obsolete theories and graphics that morph trilobites into human beings. My point is that the greatest obstacle to evolutionary science today is the massive amounts of misinformation and obsolete theories promulgated from public schools. For example Eliminativism is premised by the doctrine that �common sense psychology� lacks any account with the real science of neuropsychology. Evolutionism turns science into a Tower of Babble undermined by semantic gymnastics.

Xixax: In your case, you dislike evolution, not because the evidence is lacking, but because:
dk: Your psychic abilities are impressive, how long did they take to evolve?
The Civil Rights movement
dk: Civil Rights Law is based on a version of Cultural Relativism gleamed from anthropology from the 1930-40s. Its like building a Boeing 767 with propellers, it just ain�t gunna fly.
Seemingly degenerative morals and ethics in society ( which is arguable, considering on a statistical basis it's the reporting and sensationalization of acts that is increasing, not the acts of crime themselves )
dk: In the 1970s centralized funding fixed public schools. I the 1980s busing fixed public schools. In the 1990s technology fixed public schools. In the New Millennium hard ball standardized tests will fix public education. Public schools have become a garbage dump for all of societies woes. I call it expensive, puritanical, hypocritical and temporary.
Xixax: I'm not aware of any real connection between Civil Rights and evolution. On a philosophical note, maybe the fact that it affirms we are all human with a common ancestor that somehow backs equal rights ( as if finding we were from different species or ancestors would nullify their right to pursue happiness and have liberty ).
dk: Read Margaret Mead.
Xixax: The morals of society are doing just fine. I think over taxation and forced charity is lowering the willingness of individuals to personally contribute to society, but I hardly think the morality is declining. The media has monetary reasons to exaggerate and sensationalize events, so it may appear that way. I think we're advancing quite honestly, with many giving up the punishment/reward system espoused by religion and moving into a day when hopefully reason is used to determine those issues. Hopefully then we won't be as ignorant and post punishments for things that are personal lifestyle choices when the only support for it being a crime is a antiquated book of mythology.
dk: If one considers the education crisis, 50% divorce rate, 30% of births to unmarried mothers and over 2mil people in prison sustainable then you have a point. Seems to me the staggering numbers reflect denial not stability.
Xixax: 3) It answers more of why we are as we are than any religion can hope to. Why? Because it relies on testable and repeatable claims. Biology has answered critical questions, allowing medicines that can actually alter your personality mildly. If that isn't enough evidence of the biological nature of emotions, I'm not sure what would convince you.
dk: I agree the 20th Century scripted the first sociologically recorded history, but unfortunately the instability that racked the century left quality engineers without a standard. Any functional quality control system requires a Normative standard.
Xixax: Evolution will be the backbone of genetic sciences ( you continue to act as if genetics is somehow separate from evolution, when really it's only a subset ) and advancements in the future. The ability to identify and fix genetic irregularities before they are allowed to blossom into a disease or defect will come directly from evolutionary insights. Just because you personally draw a mystical line between micro and macro evolution doesn't mean one exists. Even when it results in speciation, you then pass it off as, "Well, the ability to breed with each other doesn't define a species".
dk: How many species of human beings are there?
Xixax: Would you care to say what does? What if two organisms had nearly identical anatomies and physical appearance, yet genetically were unable to reproduce... would they be the same species? If you could somehow reliably take physical characteristics and make a comparison numerically between 'species' you consider ( for lack of a better word ) to be the same 'kind', would that then also force us into the same 'kind' as chimpanzees and other apes?
dk: On the right evolutionism justifies scientific racism, eugenics and social engineering; on the left evolutionism justifies violent revolution, nihilism and the welfare state. I find evolutionism at the same time indiscrete and arbitrary.
Xixax: You mostly seem intent on rambling and injecting verbose sentences in a feeble attempt to win credibility for your arguments.
A hamster with a dictionary and thesaurus is still a hamster.
dk: Why is it that evolutionism leads proponents to personify animals with human qualities, and depersonalize people as rodents, parasites and cancer?

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

Doubting Didymus · 09-26-2002, 09:21 PM

I still don't understand what you are trying to say, dk. Please post some kind of conclusion.

"Therefore..."

You seem unwilling to discuss actual scientific evidence, but what should be taught in the science classroom is whatever the evidence supports.

Proposition: The evidence supports evolution.
Second proposition: The evidence refutes creationism and ID and/or is better explained by evolution.

Seeing as you have found yourself in the evolution/creation forum, would you care to discuss the actual evidence for or against evolution before you start campaigning against it? (If that is what you are actually doing, which I am not yet sure of).

The Lone Ranger · 09-26-2002, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna:

OK, I�m not keen on adding �to the best of our knowledge� or �within a 94% confidence interval� to every damn statement made, but to me there is a legitimate argument that technically this should be done to maintain scientific honesty.

The thing is, more or less every paper published in a professional journal of science is phrased something like, "the data suggest this conclusion," or "there's a 95% probability plus or minus 3%," or some such wording. In their professional publications, scientists tend to be extremely cautious.

Unfortunately, most people don't seem to like ambiguity. Time after time, I've had some student ask me a question, to which I'd respond, "the evidence suggests . . ." only to have them grow impatient and say, "but is it true?" Similarly, when I've taught genetics, when it comes to doing things like Punnett Squares, I've found that many students just hate this sort of thing. When I ask them why, they seem to be downright offended that it all boils down to probability. They want to know what the kids of two given parents will look like -- they don't want to hear about probabilities.

Certainly, when reporters for a popular magazine or newspaper read an article in a science journal or interview a scientist, then report on it, they very seldom mention that the results of the study in question are not conclusive.

How many times do we see something like this happening? Some scientists conduct a study and discover that a particular gene is associated with a certain disorder. (Meaning that people with this gene are more likely to have the disorder than people who don't have the gene. Nevertheless, lots of people who have the gene will never develop the disorder in question, and many people who develop the disorder will not have the gene.)

So, what happens when this hits the popular press? Almost invariably, the headlines read: "Gene for 'X' discovered."

Blech.

People just don't seem to like ambiguity. Unfortunately, every practicing scientist is painfully aware that ambiguity is a fact of life.

***

That having been said, it's vitally important to keep in mind that some things are far more probable than others. Some things -- including that Homo sapiens and every other extant species is the result of roughly 3.8 billion years of biological evolution -- have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

Cheers,

Michael

echidna · 09-27-2002, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Lone Ranger:
The thing is, more or less every paper published in a professional journal of science is phrased something like, "the data suggest this conclusion," or "there's a 95% probability plus or minus 3%," or some such wording. In their professional publications, scientists tend to be extremely cautious.

Unfortunately, most people don't seem to like ambiguity. Time after time, I've had some student ask me a question, to which I'd respond, "the evidence suggests . . ." only to have them grow impatient and say, "but is it true?" Similarly, when I've taught genetics, when it comes to doing things like Punnett Squares, I've found that many students just hate this sort of thing. When I ask them why, they seem to be downright offended that it all boils down to probability. They want to know what the kids of two given parents will look like -- they don't want to hear about probabilities.

But while those-in-the-know are aware of that in every journal paper, when it comes to debating, especially YEC�s, the fine print usually gets omitted. As it does with education, especially in the earlier years, and media popular science since both seek a position of authority.

Unfortunately there�s the saying that �argue with an idiot for long enough and eventually the audience may not be able to tell the difference� and unfortunately the need-for-certainty which you describe often drags science into scientism. My agnosticism runs deep and as with most arguments I even see a glimmer of truth in some of the Creationist criticisms of the dogmatism of Scientism.

Obviously I never studied Biology, however I ask the question whether when Evolution is taught in secondary school, do all leavers complete with a full understanding of the gaps in Evolutionary Theory ? I fear not. The same when I was taught Physics, precious little was spent on the latest grey areas in Cosmology or Quantum Mechanics. And nor do I ask it to be, 13 years is long enough already.

Secondary schooling is mainly about teaching what we know, not what we don�t, and often with good reason.

Heh, I can imagine your tertiary students saying something along the lines of �heck I pay 10 thou a year and you�re telling me you�re not sure !!!�. Shit, I�d be pissed.

echidna · 09-27-2002, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:
Unfortunately, in my opinion, evolution and the social sciences have increasingly become a source of doctrine, handmaidens to political processes so to speak.

I strongly agree with you with respect to social sciences, but evolution less so.

dk · 09-27-2002, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Hey Doubting Didymus

<ol type="1">Doubting Didymus: I am having a great deal of trouble trying to work out what dk is actually proposing.
Are you - campaigning to have creationism in schools?
Seriously, what is your point? what are you trying to say? what is your conclusion?
dk: Public schools should teach that creationism and evolutionism are sources of doctrine, theory and hypothesis.. Why? Because its the truth!!!. It is a intellectual injustice to confuse
1) certainty of practical knowledge know to be certain
2) a source of doctrine that leads to conviction.
People unable to distinguish �doctrine� from �practical knowledge� are intellectually illiterate.[*]Doubting Didymus: ID in schools? or just have evolution out of schools?
dk: Military schools teach Military Doctrine. Catholic Schools teach Catholic Doctrine. Public schools teach government doctrine. But Military, Catholic, and Public schools teach the same mathematics, astronomy, physics, biology, chemistry etc... See how easy that was.[*]Doubting Didymus: I assume that you deny that the evidence does not support evolution. Perhaps you would like to discuss that, as I am also sure you agree that only theories that are well supported should be taught?
And quite frankly I am sick to death of these discussions about what practical benifit evolution has.
It. Doesn't. Matter.
dk: An intellectually honest person can�t deny or belief in evidence. I understand intellectually dishonest people understand evidence as the facts which support their personal convictions, and deny evidence that contradicts their personal doctrine.[*]Doubting Didymus: If the theory is true, then we are looking at no less than the meaning of life. Evolution describes where we came from. Evolution is also our destiny, the future of all living things. Quite frankly, I don't give a stuff what the practical applied benifits are, its the only theory of origins that is even close to likely to be accurate, which is something all humans, regardless of creed, care about.
dk: The meaning of life isn�t contingent upon a theory, only personal convictions.[*]Doubting Didymus: So, seeing as we already have a couple of 'utility of evolution' threads going at the moment, why don't we discuss the actual evidence, and work out the true origin of our kind? That doesn't tempt you at all?[*]dk: I like science, so and I like the science of evolution. But I have a problem with evolutionism or creationism being misrepresented as a science. Why? Because both evolutionism and creationism are a source of doctrine.[/list=a]

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

Quetzal · 09-27-2002, 07:38 AM

dk is STILL ignoring my answer to his (apparently) spurious challenge. I guess I can now declare victory - dk is wrong. Evolutionary biology has practical value. Hooray!

09-26-2002, 09:07 PM	#74
dk Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver Posts: 1,774	Xixax: The only thing that is silly is your cartoon portrayal of what you took from his argument on transitions. dk- :I merely wish to point out the lack of transitional forms found in the fossil record. End of story. Xixax: - You continue to post relentlessly on the 'cultural benefits' of evolution. Perhaps you would like to explain to me what cultural benefits gravity has displayed? In what way has gravity shaped the morality of our youth? dk: Gravity shapes everything from toilets to table manners, as anyone with a spotted shirt, blouse or trousers will confirm. Xixax: It's not the fault of the science that some place moral and ethical burdens on it, but the fault of the person placing the burdens. dk: I agree, science suffers. That�s been one of my major themes. This thread started out on the Separation Of Church And State board and got moved here. Public schools popularize evolution with cartoons, obsolete theories and graphics that morph trilobites into human beings. My point is that the greatest obstacle to evolutionary science today is the massive amounts of misinformation and obsolete theories promulgated from public schools. For example Eliminativism is premised by the doctrine that �common sense psychology� lacks any account with the real science of neuropsychology. Evolutionism turns science into a Tower of Babble undermined by semantic gymnastics. Xixax: In your case, you dislike evolution, not because the evidence is lacking, but because: dk: Your psychic abilities are impressive, how long did they take to evolve? The Civil Rights movement dk: Civil Rights Law is based on a version of Cultural Relativism gleamed from anthropology from the 1930-40s. Its like building a Boeing 767 with propellers, it just ain�t gunna fly. Seemingly degenerative morals and ethics in society ( which is arguable, considering on a statistical basis it's the reporting and sensationalization of acts that is increasing, not the acts of crime themselves ) dk: In the 1970s centralized funding fixed public schools. I the 1980s busing fixed public schools. In the 1990s technology fixed public schools. In the New Millennium hard ball standardized tests will fix public education. Public schools have become a garbage dump for all of societies woes. I call it expensive, puritanical, hypocritical and temporary. Xixax: I'm not aware of any real connection between Civil Rights and evolution. On a philosophical note, maybe the fact that it affirms we are all human with a common ancestor that somehow backs equal rights ( as if finding we were from different species or ancestors would nullify their right to pursue happiness and have liberty ). dk: Read Margaret Mead. Xixax: The morals of society are doing just fine. I think over taxation and forced charity is lowering the willingness of individuals to personally contribute to society, but I hardly think the morality is declining. The media has monetary reasons to exaggerate and sensationalize events, so it may appear that way. I think we're advancing quite honestly, with many giving up the punishment/reward system espoused by religion and moving into a day when hopefully reason is used to determine those issues. Hopefully then we won't be as ignorant and post punishments for things that are personal lifestyle choices when the only support for it being a crime is a antiquated book of mythology. dk: If one considers the education crisis, 50% divorce rate, 30% of births to unmarried mothers and over 2mil people in prison sustainable then you have a point. Seems to me the staggering numbers reflect denial not stability. Xixax: 3) It answers more of why we are as we are than any religion can hope to. Why? Because it relies on testable and repeatable claims. Biology has answered critical questions, allowing medicines that can actually alter your personality mildly. If that isn't enough evidence of the biological nature of emotions, I'm not sure what would convince you. dk: I agree the 20th Century scripted the first sociologically recorded history, but unfortunately the instability that racked the century left quality engineers without a standard. Any functional quality control system requires a Normative standard. Xixax: Evolution will be the backbone of genetic sciences ( you continue to act as if genetics is somehow separate from evolution, when really it's only a subset ) and advancements in the future. The ability to identify and fix genetic irregularities before they are allowed to blossom into a disease or defect will come directly from evolutionary insights. Just because you personally draw a mystical line between micro and macro evolution doesn't mean one exists. Even when it results in speciation, you then pass it off as, "Well, the ability to breed with each other doesn't define a species". dk: How many species of human beings are there? Xixax: Would you care to say what does? What if two organisms had nearly identical anatomies and physical appearance, yet genetically were unable to reproduce... would they be the same species? If you could somehow reliably take physical characteristics and make a comparison numerically between 'species' you consider ( for lack of a better word ) to be the same 'kind', would that then also force us into the same 'kind' as chimpanzees and other apes? dk: On the right evolutionism justifies scientific racism, eugenics and social engineering; on the left evolutionism justifies violent revolution, nihilism and the welfare state. I find evolutionism at the same time indiscrete and arbitrary. Xixax: You mostly seem intent on rambling and injecting verbose sentences in a feeble attempt to win credibility for your arguments. A hamster with a dictionary and thesaurus is still a hamster. dk: Why is it that evolutionism leads proponents to personify animals with human qualities, and depersonalize people as rodents, parasites and cancer? [ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-26-2002, 10:12 AM	#72
Xixax Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 2,101	The only thing that is silly is your cartoon potrayal of what you took from his argument on transitions. You continue to post relentlessly on the 'cultural benefits' of evolution. Perhaps you would like to explain to me what cultural benefits gravity has displayed? In what way has gravity shaped the morality of our youth? It's not the fault of the science that some place moral and ethical burdens on it, but the fault of the person placing the burdens. In your case, you dislike evolution, not because the evidence is lacking, but because: 1) The Civil Rights movement 2) Seemingly degenerative morals and ethics in society ( which is arguable, considering on a statistical basis it's the reporting and sensationalization of acts that is increasing, not the acts of crime themselves ) 3) It doesn't YET fully explain to you why you feel 'love' when you see that special someone on Saturday. 1) I'm not aware of any real connection between Civil Rights and evolution. On a philosophical note, maybe the fact that it affirms we are all human with a common ancestor that somehow backs equal rights ( as if finding we were from different species or ancestors would nullify their right to pursue happiness and have liberty ). 2) The morals of society are doing just fine. I think over taxation and forced charity is lowering the willingness of individuals to personally contribute to society, but I hardly think the morality is declining. The media has monetary reasons to exaggerate and sensationalize events, so it may appear that way. I think we're advancing quite honestly, with many giving up the punishment/reward system espoused by religion and moving into a day when hopefully reason is used to determine those issues. Hopefully then we won't be as ignorant and post punishments for things that are personal lifestyle choices when the only support for it being a crime is a antiquated book of mythology. 3) It answers more of why we are as we are than any religion can hope to. Why? Because it relies on testable and repeatable claims. Biology has answered critical questions, allowing medicines that can actually alter your personality mildly. If that isn't enough evidence of the biological nature of emotions, I'm not sure what would convince you. Evolution will be the backbone of genetic sciences ( you continue to act as if genetics is somehow separate from evolution, when really it's only a subset ) and advancements in the future. The ability to identify and fix genetic irregularities before they are allowed to blossom into a disease or defect will come directly from evolutionary insights. Just because you personally draw a mystical line between micro and macro evolution doesn't mean one exists. Even when it results in speciation, you then pass it off as, "Well, the ability to breed with each other doesn't define a species". Would you care to say what does? What if two organisms had nearly identical anatomies and physical appearance, yet genetically were unable to reproduce... would they be the same species? If you could somehow reliably take physical characteristics and make a comparison numerically between 'species' you consider ( for lack of a better word ) to be the same 'kind', would that then also force us into the same 'kind' as chimpanzees and other apes? You mostly seem intent on rambling and injecting verbose sentences in a feeble attempt to win credibility for your arguments. A hamster with a dictionary and thesaurus is still a hamster.

09-26-2002, 09:21 PM	#75
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I still don't understand what you are trying to say, dk. Please post some kind of conclusion. "Therefore..." You seem unwilling to discuss actual scientific evidence, but what should be taught in the science classroom is whatever the evidence supports. Proposition: The evidence supports evolution. Second proposition: The evidence refutes creationism and ID and/or is better explained by evolution. Seeing as you have found yourself in the evolution/creation forum, would you care to discuss the actual evidence for or against evolution before you start campaigning against it? (If that is what you are actually doing, which I am not yet sure of).

09-27-2002, 07:38 AM	#80
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	dk is STILL ignoring my answer to his (apparently) spurious challenge. I guess I can now declare victory - dk is wrong. Evolutionary biology has practical value. Hooray!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.