hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 14, 2007 13:45:39 GMT -5
I don't think we're exerting as much interpolation. It's much more like those Connect the dots where part of the picture is dawn in with solid lines and only part of the picture has to be drawn. I think that's a better analogy. Your constelation example makes it seems like there's actually no basis for it and we're just drawing random patterns where there are none. No we don't! And that is perhaps the whole point. Again, I don't have a problem with the general theory of evolution, nor do I deny the scientific approach with which we analyze the data. But, we do not have a "fossil record" in the scientific sense. We don't have a historical progression from one specie to another. We do see eras of explosive diversity for some reason. We also see rather stagnant periods at other times. The real question is why? The answer requires a degree of faith -- defined as belief in that we cannot see. That is all that I am saying. However, when the theory is presented, it is typically done in a fashion implying certainty. And whether explicitly stated or not, the implication is certainkly that there is a systematic fossil record backing up this progression when in point of fact, that is not the case. Again, we don't have a clear recognizable chain with a missing link here or there. We have a few links and a missing chain. Thus the analogy to the nightime skies and our constellations.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 14, 2007 14:22:25 GMT -5
I don't think we're exerting as much interpolation. It's much more like those Connect the dots where part of the picture is dawn in with solid lines and only part of the picture has to be drawn. I think that's a better analogy. Your constelation example makes it seems like there's actually no basis for it and we're just drawing random patterns where there are none. No we don't! And that is perhaps the whole point. Again, I don't have a problem with the general theory of evolution, nor do I deny the scientific approach with which we analyze the data. But, we do not have a "fossil record" in the scientific sense. We don't have a historical progression from one specie to another. We do see eras of explosive diversity for some reason. We also see rather stagnant periods at other times. The real question is why? The answer requires a degree of faith -- defined as belief in that we cannot see. That is all that I am saying. However, when the theory is presented, it is typically done in a fashion implying certainty. And whether explicitly stated or not, the implication is certainkly that there is a systematic fossil record backing up this progression when in point of fact, that is not the case. Again, we don't have a clear recognizable chain with a missing link here or there. We have a few links and a missing chain. Thus the analogy to the nightime skies and our constellations. I think there's a lot more there than you're asserting, most likely less then i'm asserting. Obviosly we don't understand everything nor do we have every step along the way of the chain. and of course it's not really a chain. That implies it's moving in a direction and everythign evolved from everything else, in fact it's like a tree. Branching out in all directions. some branches end and die off. Others are still going. I think we have enough evidence to propose with some certainty that evolution is responsible for the data we have. I don't know how you can look at the evidence( homologous structures, DNA evidence, fossil reccord, etc) and think anything else. what alternative exactly are you championing? That new species appear out of thin air? I'm a practicing catholic and Believe in God. i just believe evolution is the manner in which God chose to bring about life on earth. This is the best explanation based on the evidence, and until someone proposess a theory that better captures the data then it's the one that will be taught as the truth.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 14, 2007 15:08:34 GMT -5
Look I don't know what the hell all of you retarded monkey-fish-frogs are arguing about - I thought my post cleared things up.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 14, 2007 15:22:14 GMT -5
St. Pete, thanks for the good laugh. I needed that.
sincebirth, I pretty much agree with you. All I am saying is that the theory is taught alongside chemistry and physics as if the theories are as certain as our laws of physics for example. I don't think they are (yet) worthy of such recognition, and these recent findings simply suggest that our blueprint needs a bit of tinkering to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 14, 2007 15:22:33 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 14, 2007 19:53:30 GMT -5
St. Pete, thanks for the good laugh. I needed that. sincebirth, I pretty much agree with you. All I am saying is that the theory is taught alongside chemistry and physics as if the theories are as certain as our laws of physics for example. I don't think they are (yet) worthy of such recognition, and these recent findings simply suggest that our blueprint needs a bit of tinkering to say the least. But chemistry and physics aren't completely unchanging either. New discoveries contstantly alter what we know about the field. Just recently Stephen Hawking of all people lost a bet over a disagreement within physics. If you took a physics or chem textbook from 30 years ago and compared it to one today, you'd find quite a few changes (especially at the higher levels). If you did the same thing with a biology textbook you'd find that beliefs about evolution have been more constant than beliefs in a lot of other areas. The difference is that the mass media doesn't care as much about black holes and stuff as it cares about evolution. Newton's laws are really an exception, not the rule as far as the durability of scientific theories go. I'd wager that most of what is taught as fact in today's science classrooms will be in some way altered in the next 100 years. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught, since the current teachings pave the way for new discoveries in the future. How will we ever refine the theory of evolution if we can't teach the theory of evolution as it is today?
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 15, 2007 0:54:36 GMT -5
I agree with pretty much everything the Stig said, and I think HiFi misunderstands what science is all about. Science doesn't require you to "believe" anything. It merely asks you to draw conclusions, if any can be drawn at all, from the evidence available. Scientific disagreements are not disputes between differing belief systems, they are differences of opinions based on observations and experiments. You don't have to take anything on faith, that's the whole point.
Stig, you're actually wrong about the durability of Newton's theories. Einstein's theories of special and general relativity were huge revisions to classical mechanics, as was quantum mechanics. That said, Newton's ideas were remarkable given he didn't have access to space or subatomic observations. And for most things on this planet, Newtonian laws are pretty much all you need to explain things.
Finally, HiFi's reliance on the standard ID/creationist trope about the fossil record being incomplete leads me to think his objections to natural selection are ideological or religious rather than scientific. I would suggest he look further into this topic rather than accept the classic denialist rhetoric.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 15, 2007 5:16:00 GMT -5
Stig, you're actually wrong about the durability of Newton's theories. Einstein's theories of special and general relativity were huge revisions to classical mechanics, as was quantum mechanics. That said, Newton's ideas were remarkable given he didn't have access to space or subatomic observations. And for most things on this planet, Newtonian laws are pretty much all you need to explain things. True enough. If I recall right, Heisenberg also threw a wrench into the Newtonian world view around the same time Einstein was working. Still, coming up with a set of laws that stay at the head of their scientific field for over 200 years before being superceded is pretty impressive, to say the least!
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 15, 2007 8:37:26 GMT -5
I definetly agree with bando and stig on this.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 15, 2007 9:12:41 GMT -5
I agree with pretty much everything the Stig said, and I think HiFi misunderstands what science is all about. Science doesn't require you to "believe" anything. It merely asks you to draw conclusions, if any can be drawn at all, from the evidence available. Scientific disagreements are not disputes between differing belief systems, they are differences of opinions based on observations and experiments. You don't have to take anything on faith, that's the whole point. Stig, you're actually wrong about the durability of Newton's theories. Einstein's theories of special and general relativity were huge revisions to classical mechanics, as was quantum mechanics. That said, Newton's ideas were remarkable given he didn't have access to space or subatomic observations. And for most things on this planet, Newtonian laws are pretty much all you need to explain things. Finally, HiFi's reliance on the standard ID/creationist trope about the fossil record being incomplete leads me to think his objections to natural selection are ideological or religious rather than scientific. I would suggest he look further into this topic rather than accept the classic denialist rhetoric. Nice work, sir. Nice avatar, too.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 15, 2007 14:20:30 GMT -5
Now that you back slapping EDITED have had your say, let me try to clear this up once and for all. The fossil record is severely incomplete. That much is a fact and undeniable. All that I am saying is that for the macro version of evolution to have happened, that is to say that all life as we know it developed from the primitive organisms of millions of years ago, then it is very reasonable to question why we don't have at least some recorded history of these millions upon millions of miniute changes? We have certain periods which give every indication of a boom in "life" while we have other periods which would suggest life remained rather stagnant. Why? I don't kinow and neither do you. The smartest scientists in the world have been studying that very question for decades. In any case, to blindly accept the macro theory is fine but just don't fool yourself into thinking that you are doing so after studying the science of it.
Lastly, as for science, it is often called the study of that around us. Specifically, science uses experiments to arrive at many of its conclusions. Therefore it (science) wants a predictable and reproduceable outcome. Obviously at least at this point, that is not practicle with regards to evolution. That is why many rightfully say that evolution isn't science. Personally, I don't take it that far. I am very interested in the subject and read about it all the time. So don't sit there and spout off about someones predispositions or in this case, "denialist rhetoric." It is you sir who are brandishing your position without proof and yet blindly defending it when any questions arise.
MOD NOTE: Refrain from name calling of other posters, and especially refrain from using homophobic slurs to do so.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 15, 2007 15:13:11 GMT -5
Now that you back slapping butt buddies have had your say, >:(G*D D*MN it HiFi!!!!!!! Knock off the homosexual slurs!!!!! Mods, this isn't the first time, second, or even the third time. HiFi does this way too often and it is really unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 15, 2007 15:44:22 GMT -5
I don't remember all my bio of the top of my head. but at some point after I get off I'll go get my book and look it up. That being said, I have defiently read answers to just that question and it's not that difficult.
From what I remember the gist is that we have huge booms due to extreme enviornmental events that cause the opening of multiple new nitches either due to the extinction of the nitches previous owners or because new nitches are created. The biggest example of these booms in life was known as the cambrian explosion. But to suggest that the burts of "life" are inexplicable is just false. we may not know everyhting about them or be able to explain them perfectl( that's true of anythign that happened that long ago) but to act like they disprove evolution is in my opinion misguided.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 15, 2007 16:23:56 GMT -5
I don't remember all my bio of the top of my head. but at some point after I get off I'll go get my book and look it up. That being said, I have defiently read answers to just that question and it's not that difficult. From what I remember the gist is that we have huge booms due to extreme enviornmental events that cause the opening of multiple new nitches either due to the extinction of the nitches previous owners or because new nitches are created. The biggest example of these booms in life was known as the cambrian explosion. But to suggest that the burts of "life" are inexplicable is just false. we may not know everyhting about them or be able to explain them perfectl( that's true of anythign that happened that long ago) but to act like they disprove evolution is in my opinion misguided. Your mind serves you well. The cambrian explosion is certainly one of the statistical outliers so to speak. Again, I don't use this to refute evolution, but simply to call into question the particular macro theory of evolution as it is often presented. The principle is very simple. THe macro theory is that life started somehow, someway at the beginning and it was a single celled, simple organism. THen over very very long periods of time the organisms gradually evolved into more and more complex life forms. Through genetic mutations and then natural selection, the status of life became more and more complex, eventually reaching the point we are now and with the speciation which we now have. A mandatory principle of this macro theory is that it was gradual and systematic. (Incidentally, this is why many scientists think that the macro theory goes against the second law of thermodynamics, which essentially says that things tend to move from order to disorder, but that is a discussion for another day.) The point is the explosion in the cambrian era would suggest not a gradual continuation of a previously existing pattern, but rather a culture shock caused by something. Neither you nor I know what that something is. Again, this doesn't make evolution untrue, nor am I contending that evolution didn't happen. I am merely pointing out that there are many legitimate questions which seemingly call into question certain aspects of the macro evolutionary theory. Note to tables: lighten up Francis. That was clearly a friendly little barb, with no serious intentions. If you had looked at the previous several posts, you would have seen that someone said something and then a couple of other members came in and essentially said "here, here!" Many boards consider such posts as back-slapping. DELETED: see above.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 15, 2007 16:27:19 GMT -5
Now that you back slapping butt buddies have had your say, let me try to clear this up once and for all. The fossil record is severely incomplete. That much is a fact and undeniable. All that I am saying is that for the macro version of evolution to have happened, that is to say that all life as we know it developed from the primitive organisms of millions of years ago, then it is very reasonable to question why we don't have at least some recorded history of these millions upon millions of miniute changes? We have certain periods which give every indication of a boom in "life" while we have other periods which would suggest life remained rather stagnant. Why? I don't kinow and neither do you. The smartest scientists in the world have been studying that very question for decades. In any case, to blindly accept the macro theory is fine but just don't fool yourself into thinking that you are doing so after studying the science of it. Ok, HiFi, I tried to explain this before, but you ignored it. Simply to say, you are factually wrong about this. In sum, the reasons why an incomplete fossil record does not cause the doubt in evolutionary theory you think it does: - You seem to think that evolution must happen gradually and evenly over time. This is called phyletic gradualism, and it is not true. In short, evolution tends to occur in small populations that have geographically separated from a larger population. A useful adaptation in this light will result in the organisms becoming dominant relatively quickly, hence a less chance for fossils to form. Then, selective pressure Or, as Darwin himself put it:
- There are transitional fossils! Probably best known are those in the homo genus, i.e., our freaking ancestors. Do you deny these exist? In any case, here's a nice list of transitional vertebrate fossils for you.
- As I stated before, fossils are not a universal condition. In fact, if you're talking about every living thing that ever lived on this planet, fossils are extraordinarily rare. This is because
- Certain environments are more conducive to fossilization (e.g. peat bogs, tar pits, river deltas) than others. Organisms living outside those environments very rarely produce fossils.
- Not all organisms have strong enough bodies to withstand fossilization.
- Fossils can be destroyed like anything else, mostly through geological events.
- We don't have access to the entirety of the earth's crust at the moment; most fossils we've found were the result of erosion making them visible.
According to your logic, there should be an unbroken chain of fossils leading from Noah's ark to all the continents of the world.
- Finally, and I can't stress this enough, the fossil record is not the only evidence for evolution!!!!!!!!!
[/b] You state that "the smartest scientists in the world have been studying that very question for decades", yet you don't seem to have read any of their work. If you type "evolution" into a PubMed search, you get 199,278 studies. The evidence for common descent is much more voluminous than you care to acknowledge. Here would be a good place to start. [/li][/ul] The homophobia was a nice touch, by the way.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 15, 2007 16:32:44 GMT -5
Ok, this is just stupid. As my previous post shows, you are wrong about the "gradual and systematic" nature of evolution, this is a "principle" you apparently just made up.
Second, you forgot a part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, namely the part about entropy happening in a closed system. As there's this giant nuclear reactor called the sun pumping energy into the earth, the earth is not a closed system. How convenient that you forgot this part of the second law. How strange that it's identical to other ID/creationist tropes I see all over the internet.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 15, 2007 16:37:32 GMT -5
[backslapping]
Exactly bando especailly the point about phyletic gradualism I don't know why hifi, you're assuming that evolution says it has to take place gradually. And I and others have brought up the later points but have been systematically ignored. Oh well. [/backslaping]
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 15, 2007 16:38:03 GMT -5
Note to tables: lighten up Francis. That was clearly a friendly little barb, with no serious intentions. If you had looked at the previous several posts, you would have seen that someone said something and then a couple of other members came in and essentially said "here, here!" Many boards consider such posts as back-slapping. As for butt buddy, that is certainly no worse than you hear on many TV shows. But if you would prefer, I can change it to pickle smoker. No, I will not lighten up. You're the only one around here that consistently uses language like this, and it's completely unacceptable.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 15, 2007 16:42:52 GMT -5
Bozo, I mentioned that some question this principle being consistent with the law. You are correct in that the sun is energizing the ecosystem, and therefore could be a caveat to that argument. That is still heavily debated by scientists on both sides so don't act like you have it all figured out here on the Hoya message board.
As to your criticism of my term "gradual and systematic" then I would ask you what terms would you prefer? I have read many many different books on evolutionary theory. One of the fundamental underlying principles of macro-evolution is that minute changes happened millions upon millions of times, evertually moving from the simplest single-celled life form to all of the variety of life that we see today. I will give you the opportunity to select what words you would choose for such a process. Sorry pal, but your post was utter hogwash.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 15, 2007 16:46:27 GMT -5
[backslapping] Exactly bando especailly the point about phyletic gradualism I don't know why hifi, you're assuming that evolution says it has to take place gradually. And I and others have brought up the later points but have been systematically ignored. Oh well. [/backslaping] I am not the one assuming that it had to be done gradually, that is what underlies the very theory of macro evolutionary thought. If you are suggesting that it happened almost spontaneously, then you might be an advocate for a guiding hand in the process ... dare I even say ... intelligent design? Tables, get off your stinking high horse, those little barbs are just joking phrases. Don't get your panties in a wad. Oops, there's another one. Good night all.
|
|