New Findings on Evolution

[HealyHoya]

Yes, please mods, do not lock this up.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Well, I'm sure a google search means it was all true. I mean everything on google is a peer-reviewed document based on logic right?

I mean all of this stuff must be true then right? www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=HifiGator&btnG=Search

[hifigator]

stpetersburghoya said:

Look, guys, I've read this thread and laughed my ass off.

I'd like to summarize it so far:

Hifi: opinion.

Others: citation of theories and other sources to disprove this opinion.

Hifi: Denial accompanied with recitation of his opinion.

Others: Further discussion with more recitation of sources.

Hifi: Repeated denial accompanied with slightly more emphatic recitation of his own opinion with flourishes of name-calling.

The lesson: When someone cares enough to post an uninformed (or at least un-evidenced) opinion on the off topic section of a forum that they exist in only because of the good graces of a few very understanding moderators, they probably aren't going to change that opinion - no matter what you tell them.

I would have thought that HiFi had "evolved" and stopped throwing around homophobic slurs. I guess he disproved that theory. Lock this up.

If you want to focus on those slurs, then fine. The phrase was used for emphasis and in the proper context. Whether or not the phrase itself is acceptable is another issue. In any case, the rest of your post indicates that you haven't paid any attention either. First you say I gave opinion. That much is true to a degree although my opinions really came later in the thread. In any case, when giving my opinion it was typically indicated as such with phrases such as "personally" or "from my experience."

You say some disproved my opinions. That simply isn't the case. When I gave opinions, they were just that -- opinions. An opinion is a subjective interpretation of some degree of objective data. Those are my words, but feel free to consult websters if you wish. In any case, my opinions were not disproven. In fact most of my opinions are consistent with most of my adversaries here. As I indicated, it is my opinion that evolution is cohesive with intelligent design. Whether or not a designer is or was present is an entirely different issue and one in which I didn't offer an opinion.

Then you say I show repeated denial of this, that or the other. I guess you could call it that but that is only because the context of the replies from some of you all warrant such a response from me. As soon as I pointed out that there are certain areas of macro-evolutionary theory that are called into question, you (some not all) immediately put words in my mouth and act as if I am espousing each and every of these beliefs. The truth is just the opposite. The fact of the matter is that the explosion of life in the cambrian era is a difficult issue strictly under macro-evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean that anyone in the discussion is right or wrong. Similarly, the second law of thermodynamics is thought by some to buck with traditional macro-evolutionary theory. Once again, I am not saying that it does or doesn't, just pointing out that there is discussion on the matter. Thirdly, the tremendous gaps in the so-called fossil record seemingly question certain parts of macro-evolutionary theory. All of that is the point. None of these issues are catastrophic to evolutionary thought, and in point of fact I have mostly sided with the scientific explanations of these phenomena. But it is guys like Bando and a few others who are really to blame here for acting like such discussions simply don't exixt. Even though I agree in principle with most of what he says, I am honest enough to acknowledge that such issues do pose reasonable grey areas with the macro view.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

It's funny hifi I did that google searcha nd the majority are about how evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics and how it's an argument used by creationists.( the words of the first article that comes up, not mine). So in other words, you're still wrong.

[hoyatables]

hifigator said:

If you want to focus on those slurs, then fine. The phrase was used for emphasis and in the proper context. Whether or not the phrase itself is acceptable is another issue

The point is that it is unacceptable and therefore there isn't a proper context! At first, I figured you to be one of those guys who calls something "gay" when he wants to say its "stupid" and doesn't consciously appreciate the import of his statement. And I also tried the polite route and even PMed you the first couple of times to say "hey, man, that's not cool." So the first time in this thread, I was willing to disregard the statement after calling you out on it as your typical ignorant BS.

But then went and purposely dragged out a couple more insults for good measure, which were even more offensive and, moreover, were intentional and completely conscious. Good to see the enlightened mind we're dealing with here.

Look, board rules explicitly ban ad hominem and personal attacks. Insulting someone personally in the course of making an argument violates those rules, and it also violates rules of common decency. Therefore, its NEVER appropriate to use it for emphasis, at least around here.

[hifigator]

hoyasincebirth said:

It's funny hifi I did that google searcha nd the majority are about how evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics and how it's an argument used by creationists.( the words of the first article that comes up, not mine). So in other words, you're still wrong.

No I am not "wrong." One last time, I am not and have not said that there is a certain inconsistency with macro-evolutionary theroy and the second law of thermodynamics. All I said is that it is at least an issue of discussion, as is the explosion of life in the cambrian era and as is the dramatic gaps in the fossil record. I am not espousing either side of any of these arguments, just acknowledging that they exist, something that Bando refuses to do.

[Bando]

That is how we got off on this thermodynamics tangent. And that is something which bando still doesn't seem to get. My only point in that regard is that some think there is a contradiction between evolutionary theory and the second law of Thermodynamics. Again, I am not saying nor have I ever said that the two are incompatible. But to deny that it is at least an issue worth discussion is just plain silly and yet bando insists on doing that very thing. A quick google of "evolution and the second law of thermodynamics" yielded 5 pages of results addressing the very topic. Most did defend the position of compatiblity but some did not. That much is irrelevant. My point is proven by the very fact that so much has been devoted to the topic.

HiFi, we're not having a difference of opinion on this matter, you're simply wrong on the facts. The second law of thermodynamics does not say what you think it says. You have a faulty premise, and it led to a faulty conclusion. The fact that others share your ignorance does not make you any less wrong. By the way, you should probably look up the logical fallacy "Appeal to Popularity".

You say some disproved my opinions. That simply isn't the case. When I gave opinions, they were just that -- opinions. An opinion is a subjective interpretation of some degree of objective data.

Holy Hypocrite, Batman! You castigated me (falsely) for not providing evidence and sources, and now you're falling back on "It's just my opinion". You've got some cojones, buddy.

As soon as I pointed out that there are certain areas of macro-evolutionary theory that are called into question, you (some not all) immediately put words in my mouth and act as if I am espousing each and every of these beliefs.

Wait, let me see if I get this. You attack evolutionary theory, but we're in the wrong because we acted like you attacked evolutionary theory. You've defended that initial attack in post after post, and even expanded your critique.

But you don't actually hold to that opinion? It's just something you put out there? You're brain must be a real piece a work, as you apparently can hold diametrically opposed opinions at once. That or you're just being dishonest.

But it is guys like Bando and a few others who are really to blame here for acting like such discussions simply don't exixt. [sic]

Jeez, HiFi, you don't get it. I'm not denying that some people hold these beliefs, I'm denying the truth of those beliefs. Talk about putting words into one's mouth.

Finally, HiFi, just because there exists a difference of opinion on a matter doesn't mean those opinions are equally valid. This is Logic 101, and I can't believe that you really think this is true. Just to give you an example of what you're logic implies, let me give you a real world example:

While having a smoke last week, a man came up to me and started talking, unsolicited. Among other things, he stated that Queen Elizabeth II has been contacting him telepathically for years and is trying to control him, and that he works psy-ops for the CIA, and that Paul McCartney is actually Adolf Hitler. Let's break this down. He's of the opinion that Queen Elizabeth is trying to control his mind. I'm of the opinion that he's mentally ill. Do we give each opinion offered equal credence? Do we call this a controversy?

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean we should sit back, applaud, and accept it uncritically. You say, " I am honest enough to acknowledge that such issues do pose reasonable grey areas with the macro view." No one's critiquing your honesty, HiFi! (well, at least not when it comes to this). We're critiquing this very notion; I don't think these issues pose reasonable grey areas. I've given many, many reasons why they don't, and I've linked to actual scientific evidence that back this up. You've given us thought experiments, ad hominem attacks, and the same spiel over and over again. You're glossing over the evidence that you're wrong by continuing to assert that you're right. Sorry, buddy, that's not science.

In summation, your logic is faulty and your conclusions are unfounded. Please stop misrepresenting my argument.

[hifigator]

Again, the very fact that there are 5 pages of threads on the subject including books written entirely on the subject should certainly indicate that the subject has some debatable merit.

[Bando]

hifigator said:

Again, the very fact that there are 5 pages of threads on the subject including books written entirely on the subject should certainly indicate that the subject has some debatable merit.

Stop appealing to popularity! Science isn't majority rules. If it was, you'd lose, as most of this thread is you saying something and everyone else telling you how wrong you are. Bring some actual evidence, then your argument might have some merit. Until then, sorry.

[hifigator]

Bando, now I just think you are talking to hear yourself talk. I will try one last time to explain this very clearly.

My criticism of macro-evolutionary theory is that it is sometimes/often presented as certainty and with no mention of the uncertainty. In other words, just as we are taught that 2+2=4, and that water at sea level will boil at 212 degrees, so we are taught that life evolved in a certain way. Through the years, the particulars have changed multiple times. In spite of unanswered questions, the macro theory is still often presented as fact and with no room for interpretation. Just a couple such areas are the question of how the theory fits within the tendency towards disorder. Other questions dealing more directly with the theory would ask why was there such an explosion of life in the Cambrian era and why isn't there a far more complete fossil record for us to analyze.
It is that simple and that is what I have said all along. If you accept the macro viewpoint, I contend that you are doing so with a degree of faith. How much? I don't know; you put a number on it. Who cares? You seemingly maintain that no faith is necessary. If so, then why are we continuing to study the matter in the first place? If we had all of the answers as you seemingly think (yes, I realize I am putting words in your mouth here, but as you refuse to address the issue, that is the only reasonable conclusion to your beliefs), then we wouldn't need anymore experimentation, excavation and analysis.


Again, I am not and have never argued against the theory itself just in how it is sometimes presented. And I have given a few examples of the so called grey area which is as of yet undefined.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

hifigator said:

now I just think you are talking to hear yourself talk.

"Hi, my name is pot. What's your's?"

"I'm kettle, nice to meet you."

[Bando]

You know, I was going to do another point by point rebuttal of the idiocy you post above. But it's not worth it, you're not even reading anything I write. It's like trying to explain calculus to a monkey.

[hoyatables]

bando said:

You know, I was going to do another point by point rebuttal of the idiocy you post above. But it's not worth it, you're not even reading anything I write. It's like trying to explain calculus to a monkey.

Insert evolution joke about monkeys here.

[HealyHoya]

bando said:

You know, I was going to do another point by point rebuttal of the idiocy you post above. But it's not worth it, you're not even reading anything I write. It's like trying to explain calculus to a monkey.

Do another point-by-point rebuttal, please. It's the off-season so let's keep this going.

Also, hifigator.com: emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm

[Bando]

healyhoya said:

bando said:

You know, I was going to do another point by point rebuttal of the idiocy you post above. But it's not worth it, you're not even reading anything I write. It's like trying to explain calculus to a monkey.

Do another point-by-point rebuttal, please. It's the off-season so let's keep this going.

Ok I will, but later, I'm busy at work at the moment. Let's just say that "strawman" is going to be a word I use a lot in the rebuttal.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

hifigator said:

Again, the very fact that there are 5 pages of threads on the subject including books written entirely on the subject should certainly indicate that the subject has some debatable merit.

A total of 14 posters have contributed to this thread.

• 4 posters have not addressed the topic on its merits.
  
• 1 kind of has, but really only to make fun of you.
  
• 1 has one post, and it was to support what another poster wrote, which was not directly in support of your point.
  
• 1 may agree with you, but his last post was a week ago.
  
• 6 either flat out disagree with you or think you're not explaining your view well enough to consider it meritorious - and so does my co-woker who happens to have a PhD in evolutionary ecology from UT-Austin. She's also no dogmatist and has no problem questioning scientific convention. I had her read through this thread to get a sense of who's facts are right, who is making false arguments, etc. Without getting into her animated responses to your posts, let's just say she thinks you're wrong too.
  

Thus, in the last week of discussion, you are the sole defender of your "side" of this discussion.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

tothebeach said:

A total of 14 posters have contributed to this thread.

• 1 kind of has, but really only to make fun of you.
  

Present.

[hifigator]

I went back and found my first comments on this subject. They illustrate the point I was making. I have not attacked evolution, just questioned the manner in which it is sometimes presented.


Personally whether you believed that natural selection along with mutations caused all of the creatures of the earth, air and sea or whether a divine being had at least an overseeing hand in the process is up to you. The key, however, is that it requires faith either way. We are all putting our faith in something by believing that which we don't know for sure. It really is that simple.


***************************************************************************************


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.

***************************************************************************************

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.

****************************************************************************************

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.


***************************************************************************************


Alright, now there you have it. There is no fluff. There is no made up analagous reference. There is no feel good nonsense. If you will notice, I didn't take a side in really any of the underlying issues, just acknowledged that they exist, which once again you refuse to do.


Yes or no: Is our historical evidence of evolution complete?

Yes or no: Have some elements of the theory been at the very least tweaked through the years?

Yes or no: Are their questions concerning certain particulars which we cannot (at least yet) explain?

If you answered yes, to the questions above, then you see my point. That is all I have been saying along. If you answered no to any/all of them, then please explain.

[hifigator]

tothebeach said:

hifigator said:

Again, the very fact that there are 5 pages of threads on the subject including books written entirely on the subject should certainly indicate that the subject has some debatable merit.

A total of 14 posters have contributed to this thread.

• 4 posters have not addressed the topic on its merits.
  
• 1 kind of has, but really only to make fun of you.
  
• 1 has one post, and it was to support what another poster wrote, which was not directly in support of your point.
  
• 1 may agree with you, but his last post was a week ago.
  
• 6 either flat out disagree with you or think you're not explaining your view well enough to consider it meritorious.
  

Thus, in the last week of discussion, you are the sole defender of your "side" of the debate.

I hate to break the news to you, but you need to keep up. The reference to the 5 pages was concerning the google search of "evolution and the second law of thermodynamics." I only mentioned it to validate that there is at least some significant amount of discussion on the topic, something which Bando for some reason denies.

[hifigator]

stpetersburghoya said:

tothebeach said:

A total of 14 posters have contributed to this thread.

• 1 kind of has, but really only to make fun of you.
  

Present.

That sir, was kind of funny.