|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 17, 2007 15:47:44 GMT -5
A total of 14 posters have contributed to this thread. - 1 kind of has, but really only to make fun of you.
Present. Nice!
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 17, 2007 15:52:58 GMT -5
[/Hifi Argument opening] Look, HiFi, let me explain this in a way you can understand. [HiFi Argument Opening]
Let's not think about it in terms of dinosaurs and fossil records.
We know that from 1969 to 1974 British Progressive Rock was ruled by King Crimson. I don't have any proof of this. I don't actually own any of their albums, but I take it to be true. Its a premise. For some reason they didn't keep making music. They went "extinct." However, there were a number of competing bands that did what King Crimson did, only better, including Yes and Emerson, Lake, & Palmer. They got to keep making music because they were better at it. That's natural selection.
Now for evolution - If we can accept the premise that some bands just don't go on forever remaining pretty much unchanged, then we have some chance to look at evolution. In the early 1980s the British music scene was changing - progressive rock groups were being replaced by Album Oriented Rock acts like Electric Light Orchestra and Journey. Bands had to change to keep up. So a band was born that had mutated to include several parts that resembled those of successful Progressive British Rock acts of the previous era - these parts were John Wetton, Steve Howe, Geoff Downes, and Carl Palmer. That's what the final product looked like. But this band recorded demos with other artists and some members of the band left to form another version of Yes. None of those versions of the band exist today. None of them put out an album that has ever been found on the market. We theorize that they exist because we can connect their musical style to those artists. Of course, we know that the band Asia existed. But to assume that it came from nowhere is and spontaneously generated itself, is a much more reckless assumption that believing that there were no intermediate versions of the band.
ON EDIT: We also know that the evolution of Asia didn't stop there the band also mutated to include former members of Toto and Genesis.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 17, 2007 15:57:53 GMT -5
[/Hifi Argument opening] Look, HiFi, let me explain this in a way you can understand. [HiFi Argument Opening] Let's not think about it in terms of dinosaurs and fossil records. We know that from 1969 to 1974 British Progressive Rock was ruled by King Crimson. I don't have any proof of this. I don't actually own any of their albums, but I take it to be true. Its a premise. For some reason they didn't keep making music. They went "extinct." However, there were a number of competing bands that did what King Crimson did, only better, including Yes and Emerson, Lake, & Palmer. They got to keep making music because they were better at it. That's natural selection. Now for evolution - If we can accept the premise that some bands just don't go on forever remaining pretty much unchanged, then we have some chance to look at evolution. In the early 1980s the British music scene was changing - progressive rock groups were being replaced by Album Oriented Rock acts like Electric Light Orchestra and Journey. Bands had to change to keep up. So a band was born that had mutated to include several parts that resembled those of successful Progressive British Rock acts of the previous era - these parts were John Wetton, Steve Howe, Geoff Downes, and Carl Palmer. That's what the final product looked like. But this band recorded demos with other artists and some members of the band left to form another version of Yes. None of those versions of the band exist today. None of them put out an album that has ever been found on the market. We theorize that they exist because we can connect their musical style to those artists. Of course, we know that the band Asia existed. But to assume that it came from nowhere is and spontaneously generated itself, is a much more reckless assumption that believing that there were no intermediate versions of the band. If I take that sarcastically then it was pretty damn funny. If it is to be taken seriously however, (very doubtful) then all you would be doing is helping to prove the existence of a fossil record. Whether or not you own any of those albums is entirely irrelevant. They exist. Furthermore there are probably millions of eye witnesses to their existence. Following up (and returning to the sarcastic interpretation), you would also be proving the second law of thermodynamics, as Asia is certainly less orderly.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 17, 2007 16:02:39 GMT -5
Following up (and returning to the sarcastic interpretation), you would also be proving the second law of thermodynamics, as Asia is certainly less orderly. False, the band reunited in 2007 to do a world tour.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,004
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 17, 2007 21:22:42 GMT -5
Moderator Advisory: This discussion will continue ONLY if the participants refrain from name calling. You know who you are. Continue it and the thread gets locked.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 17, 2007 21:57:23 GMT -5
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. For the love of.....for the 9th time, I am not denying that people hold contradictory views on this matter. I am merely saying that those who subscribe to your view are horribly, horribly wrong. Enough with the strawmen! You can't possibly be this dense.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 18, 2007 11:03:37 GMT -5
Bando, we are not getting anywhere. You put words in my mouth and then "prove" me wrong, then accuse me of doing that same thing. For the last time, the only point is that there are a number of questions which we still have about macro-evolution. That is why it is still considered a theory, even among its most stauchest supporters -- except for you I guess. The point is that even the staunchest supporters admit as much, but simply say that we have yet to put all the pieces together. For some unknown reason, you decided that everyone else is wrong and we do have all of the answers, and people who don't see that are just dense. There is no end to such ramblings. I asked you 3 specific questions and you as of yet didn't respond. I would imagine that you are finally understanding my point and are attempting to save face by ignoring the questions. I will let you slide on that and we can now move on to something else. I just wish it didn't take so long to get to this point. If you hadn't been so damn stubborn, then we could have saved a lot of time. In any case, on to something else.
Note to St. Pete: I have no idea what you are talking about. Whether or not Asia reunited is irrelevant. The point I was making was a sarcastic one that Asia was a step down from King Crimson and the sort. You must have misunderstood me. A reunion has no bearing whatsoever on my point.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 18, 2007 11:18:08 GMT -5
Asia was 5 times better than King Crimson and you know it.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 18, 2007 12:01:00 GMT -5
I'm honestly not all that familiar with King Crimson in particular so I might have misspoke. But if Asia was 5 times better, then King Crimson must have been pretty bad.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 18, 2007 12:12:46 GMT -5
The problem is hifi you're asking the wrong questions.
"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? "
Is the historical evidence complete.... well it's complete enough. is it 100% no, but it doesn't has to be.
have some elements been tweaked? yes... but so what that just prooves that things changed in the past. it doesn't proove that things need to be changed or that they will change.
Are there questions concerning certain particulars that haven't been explained? not really, if you're referring to your arguments... then no. Are there some legitimate questions we haven't worked out perfectly., maybe... but that once again doesn't proove anything.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 18, 2007 12:24:09 GMT -5
I agree with what HSB said, I'd like to add one more point. If you prevail on every question that you are posing, what does that do? All you've proved is that a theory makes some inferences. Stop the presses - science/any part of academia using inferences to arrive at a conclusion - wow. That's nothing new, that's called critical thinking. Your arguments don't go much further than that IMO. You're not proffering a competing theory that you claim to be more true than that which you are attacking. You're not asserting the overall falsity of the theory, just certain inferences it makes. I honestly don't know where your logic is leading you. It can't objectively lead to the conclusion that evolution is false because saying that one inference is over-stated means the entire theory is incorrect and an unstated alternative is true is a glaring fallacy.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 18, 2007 12:28:17 GMT -5
The problem is hifi you're asking the wrong questions. "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? " Is the historical evidence complete.... well it's complete enough. is it 100% no, but it doesn't has to be. have some elements been tweaked? yes... but so what that just prooves that things changed in the past. it doesn't proove that things need to be changed or that they will change. Are there questions concerning certain particulars that haven't been explained? not really, if you're referring to your arguments... then no. Are there some legitimate questions we haven't worked out perfectly., maybe... but that once again doesn't proove anything. First things first, thank you for the intelligent discourse. As to your points, I wouldn't really argue too much with anything you said specifically except maybe with the phrase "it doesn't have to be." My very premise is that macro-evolutionary theory is inappropriately presented as certainty alongside true "proven" science like physics. That is all I have been saying the whole time. Instead of responding to that point, people keep trying to debate the particulars or this or that factor of the big picture. The bottom line is that we don't know how things happened millions of years ago. We are studying what we have to learn from and we are constantly and continually building on our library of information, but to say it is still a work in progress is putting it very mildly. It is merely the veracity with which some jump to defend this field when we are clearly still in the learning stages that iritates me. I have not been arguing "against" evolution the whole time. I have merely pointed out that there are some questions which at least seemingly don't cohesively fit with some currently taught macro-evolutionary theory. But as we all admit, we are learning more everyday. I just think we should make a distinction between what we know and what we interpolate from the data.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 18, 2007 12:29:21 GMT -5
To finish the thought, I think "it does have to be" to be presented with such certainty.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 18, 2007 12:33:53 GMT -5
I agree with what HSB said, I'd like to add one more point. If you prevail on every question that you are posing, what does that do? All you've proved is that a theory makes some inferences. Stop the presses - science/any part of academia using inferences to arrive at a conclusion - wow. That's nothing new, that's called critical thinking. Your arguments don't go much further than that IMO. You're not proffering a competing theory that you claim to be more true than that which you are attacking. You're not asserting the overall falsity of the theory, just certain inferences it makes. I honestly don't know where your logic is leading you. It can't objectively lead to the conclusion that evolution is false because saying that one inference is over-stated means the entire theory is incorrect and an unstated alternative is true is a glaring fallacy. I have never, not even once claimed that evolution is "false" and in point of fact have said the exact opposite with regard to much of the overall picture. I have not "attacked" evolution and I am not presenting a "competing theory." I am merely pointing out that a theory is what we are dealing with, not a law. Yet for some inexplicable reason, some (Bando in particular) seem convinced to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 18, 2007 12:40:41 GMT -5
A. Big type is annoying.
B. He's pointing out that your arguments are wrong, no matter what they are directed at. I tend to agree with him.
C. Attacking a position is the same as pointing out the uncertainty of it.
D. I am pointing out that your logic is not leading you to make any substantive point even if everything you've written is correct. No one is arguing for the truth of "the law of evolution," they are arguing for the trust of the "theory of evolution." Your argument seems to be based on the idea that if evolution were true it would be raised to the level of fact or law by science. Facts are a dime a dozen in science. Its a fact that solids are tougher to penetrate than liquids and gases. That doesn't tell us anything about why - you need a theory that makes inferences from those observed facts to explain why they are that way. People here are arguing that either the inferences being made are correct. You are saying that they are uncertain and relies on inferences. Even if you prevail on that point, you've proved nothing because it is acknowledged in the term scientists use to describe evolution.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 20, 2007 1:36:12 GMT -5
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. HiFi, all the above really shows is that you have no idea how science actually works. You draw this dichotomy between evolution and the rest of scientific knowledge, saying that the former lacks the certainty and authority of the latter. In reality, however, no scientific theory is different from evolutionary theory; it's all the best explanations we have based on the evidence available. Gravitation, mechanics, covalency: they have the same limits to their claims as evolution does (2+2=4 is a red herring, as that's first principles stuff). You criticize science for changing over time, what you don't realize is that's exactly what it's supposed to do. A theory is modified or expanded based on new evidence (by the way, the definition of evidence here is "observations and experimentation"). If enough evidence accumulates to contradict a given theory, then that theory is replaced by either another theory, if the data can support it, or nothing, if the data is enough to prove one theory but not establish another. What would you have science do? Ignore contradicting evidence and carry on? I'm sorry, but that's what faith does. I'm not maintaining that science has all the answers or knows everything. All it knows is what the evidence and logic show to be true, and it also knows that new evidence can become available to change what we know. One can't "believe" or "disbelieve" in science, per se, one can only accepts the conclusions it draws from the available evidence or not. And like it or not, a century's worth of evidence has only served to bolster and expand Darwin's original theory. If you'd like to challenge this, please provide some actual evidence backing up your claims, rather than positing thought experiments that I've already shown to be factually false. Oh, and by the way, you know the difference between the scientific and the vernacular definitions of the words "theory" and "fact", right? Because it would be quite silly if you didn't.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 20, 2007 1:46:05 GMT -5
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. No, they both don't require faith, because one claim is falsifiable and the other is not. The whole middle of your post is the same strawmen and false evidence you've peddled the entire thread, you've just repeated it for the eighth or ninth time. I'll trust you can go back in the thread and read my responses from the first time you posted this. As for your questions: Is our historical evidence of evolution complete?Of course not, and no one has said as much. There can always be new evidence presented to change conclusions. To put a limit on knowledge is purely a faith-based endeavor. Have some elements of the theory been at the very least tweaked through the years?Yes, but it's all been in the "expansion of" direction rather than the "refutation of". Are their questions concerning certain particulars which we cannot (at least yet) explain? No. Every thing evolution claims is backed up by evidence. Science doesn't make claims it doesn't have the evidence to back up. Again, all the evidence to date has only served to back up evolutionary theory. If you have actual evidence disputing this, by all means let me know about it.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 20, 2007 1:50:19 GMT -5
Bando, we are not getting anywhere. You put words in my mouth and then "prove" me wrong, then accuse me of doing that same thing. For the last time, the only point is that there are a number of questions which we still have about macro-evolution. That is why it is still considered a theory, even among its most stauchest supporters -- except for you I guess. The point is that even the staunchest supporters admit as much, but simply say that we have yet to put all the pieces together. For some unknown reason, you decided that everyone else is wrong and we do have all of the answers, and people who don't see that are just dense. There is no end to such ramblings. I asked you 3 specific questions and you as of yet didn't respond. I would imagine that you are finally understanding my point and are attempting to save face by ignoring the questions. I will let you slide on that and we can now move on to something else. I just wish it didn't take so long to get to this point. If you hadn't been so damn stubborn, then we could have saved a lot of time. In any case, on to something else. Oh Lord. Again, HiFi, you should really look up the differences between the scientific and vernacular definitions of the words "theory" and "fact". The fact that you don't know this, and that every single "problem" you've cited with evolutionary theory is almost taken verbatim from creationist and ID websites, really makes me doubt whether you've been serious about this discussion from the start. I'm stubborn? I'm not the one sticking to their claims after being shown they were factually untrue.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 20, 2007 1:56:34 GMT -5
Again with the false dichotomy. Did you major in Logical Fallacies at Florida? The rest of science has the same limits on its claims that evolution does, that's what happens when you infer only what you can from the evidence and don't just take things on faith.
You're a liar. Saying evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is, to say the least, an argument against evolution. Why the constant backpedaling?
|
|
DrumsGoBang
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
DrumsGoBang - Bang Bang
Posts: 910
|
Post by DrumsGoBang on Aug 20, 2007 8:38:49 GMT -5
As someone who once built a perpitual motion machine, I can state for a fact that entropy does not mean moving towards lack or order. That is because order is subjective. If you go to particle physics, order has nothing to do with shapes, or locations, its all probablity. Particles can't have order in the classic sense since they can actually be in more then one place at the same time.
Mr T says 'Stay in School', "Don't Do Drugs"
|
|