The Evolution Debate

[SteveAJones]

9 minutes ago, action said:

also, our capability at performing science is inherently limited by our physiology.

put it this way. a monkey is capable of science too. he can watch certain processes happening and then make certain conclusions and act upon his conclusions. this has been shown in experiments many times over. but there are limits at a monkey's capacity to "know" his world.

and here comes the shocker: so does our physiology impair our own capacity at understanding the world.

there is this irrational belief in our intellectual capacities, we believe we will understand the universe "some day".

but as time goes on, science is encountering more and more problems they don't seem to explain.

the uncertainty principle on a quantum level is a nice example at how impaired we are at undertanding nature.

but just because "we" can explain quantum mechanics, doesn't mean there "isn't" a logical solution...only we aren't intelligent enough to understand

as i said, evolution is an ongoing process. in 300.000 years time we will have evolved dramatically, and so will our intelligence. wether we will be intelligent enough, then, to fully understand quantum mechanics, i dont know.

 

I'm feeling you with the exception of a monkey's capacity to perform deductive reasoning within the context of self-awareness. If, for example, I put a mirror in front of a monkey, he'll see his reflection and react or respond to it. However, I submit to you he does so devoid of any self-awareness, a cognitive understanding that he is the reflection he sees. Put differently, a monkey has yet to declare or demonstrate "I Am", as far as I know.

Edited December 8, 2016 by SteveAJones

[AtariLegend]

Proof that humans evolved from Greater Apes;

Spoiler

 

[KiraMPD]

The Infinite Monkey Theory cannot solely be used to describe the Theory of Evolution. Random genetic mutation is a part of it but that in addition to selective survival pressure is what make it work. There is certainly more work to be done with regards to sussing out the origin of life, but considering the evidence we have now the theory of evolution look pretty good.

[SteveAJones]

7 minutes ago, KiraMPD said:

The Infinite Monkey Theory cannot solely be used to describe the Theory of Evolution. Random genetic mutation is a part of it but that in addition to selective survival pressure is what make it work. There is certainly more work to be done with regards to sussing out the origin of life, but considering the evidence we have now the theory of evolution look pretty good.

Both theories posit that given enough TIME and ELEMENTS (or factors) from out of chaos comes order. I see this premise as a fundamental flaw. I understand that theoretically, mathematically, infinite monkeys could bang out the US Constitution, for example, but they would be doing so devoid of the humanity/human experience from whence that document was inspired. Similarly, I understand that theoretically, life could have evolved from say single cell amoebas to more complex organisms. However, I don't see any impetuous for them to do so devoid of intelligent design.  

Edited December 8, 2016 by SteveAJones

[SteveAJones]

4 minutes ago, Wagszilla said:

Go read a biology book, specifically one from an expert on the field of evolution then.

The author(s) of such a book would be assumptive, and betting their bias would they not? Evolution is merely a THEORY, not a scientific fact. Yet  it's practical advice nonetheless. Perhaps I'll read a book from the theological side of the argument for the sake of balance. 

[SteveAJones]

35 minutes ago, AtariLegend said:

Proof that humans evolved from Greater Apes;

  Reveal hidden contents

 

It will be interesting to see if this post stands, because you can bet your baboon ass if I or anyone else were to make a similar comparison to the current POTUS the social justice warrior caterwauling would be off the charts. 

[Len Cnut]

40 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

I'm feeling you with the exception of a monkey's capacity to perform deductive reasoning within the context of self-awareness. If, for example, I put a mirror in front of a monkey, he'll see his reflection and react or respond to it. However, I submit to you he does so devoid of any self-awareness, a cognitive understanding that he is the reflection he sees. Put differently, a monkey has yet to declare or demonstrate "I Am", as far as I know.

Bubbles came damn close.

[SteveAJones]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Bubbles came damn close.

 

[KiraMPD]

2 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

Both theories posit that given enough TIME and ELEMENTS (or factors) from out of chaos comes order. I see this premise as a fundamental flaw. I understand that theoretically, mathematically, infinite monkeys could bang out the US Constitution, for example, but they would be doing so devoid of the humanity/human experience from whence that document was inspired. Similarly, I understand that theoretically, life could have evolved from say single cell amoebas to more complex organisms. However, I don't see any impetuous for them to do so devoid of intelligent design.  

So what you are suggesting is that without intervention (or as you suggest - Intelligent design), there would be no need for an organism to evolve beyond it's current state because it's able to survive in that state? The theory of evolution just about enough "time and elements", for a species to evolve it requires an advantageous mutation that aids it's survival over the previous state. Are you suggesting that rather than "survival of the fittest", intelligent design caused selective pressure that allows for evolution?

 

With regards to the monkey and the mirror; few primates other than humans and some Hominidae pass the mirror test. However, some animals have passed the mirror test.

[SteveAJones]

6 minutes ago, KiraMPD said:

Are you suggesting that rather than "survival of the fittest", intelligent design caused selective pressure that allows for evolution?

Essentially yes. Additionally, I seem to be suggesting intelligent design is behind the existence of all things. That's not to say there's a cosmic Jewish carpenter in the sky smiling down upon us and doing what he can to ensure my football team wins on Sunday. It is to say we are part of something we do not fully comprehend nor understand at this point in time. I think Mick Jagger said it best when he sung "Like a newborn baby, it just happens every day". We take for granted the miracle of our own existence.

Edited December 8, 2016 by SteveAJones

[action]

31 minutes ago, Wagszilla said:

The metaphor in the OP doesn't hold water, while funny.

It's like saying that just because Axl doesn't understand / can't perform classic blues, he's not a great rock n' roller. There is some overlap in the field of music but they're entirely different subfields.

The Carson thing also brings the complexity of the human mind into the discussion.

Go read a biology book, specifically one from an expert on the field of evolution then.

I'm not sure how any of that follows logically but it's only the start your statement being philosophically unsophisticated.

All reasoning is inherently a posteriori, everything we know and can understand is empirical, yes, because that's the only way that we humans can tangibly and reliably understand knowledge. The rest is just nonsense and magical thinking.

While we have limited intellectual resources, that's why we have tools that 1. Allow us to check our cognitive biases, i.e. the scientific method and logic and 2. Allow us to understand phenomena beyond human capability.

"everything we can understand is empirical" which is why our scientific procedures are linked to our physiology.

"what we see" is basically light particles (of a limited spectrum, suited for our eyes and instruments) reaching our eye, or instruments, and then this is interpreted by our (also limited) brain.

science is inherently linked to "what our brain is capable of", which is limited from the get-go.

humans have "self awareness", and animals have not. ok. now watch this:

maybe there is a higher level of consciousness, which we aren't capable of. like an animal will never be self aware, we as humans may never have this higher consciousness. What is our place as an individual in the universe? our purpose? that level of consciousness, we don't have.

we say animals are inferior to us, since they aren't self-aware. well, what if there are aliens which are of a higher consciousness than us? by the same logic which makes animals inferior to us, these aliens may find us inferior to THEM.

Edited December 8, 2016 by action

[action]

1 minute ago, Wagszilla said:

You use the word theory without understanding what it means in a scientific context - a well-substantiated framework for a series of facts and observations.

Also a theory: gravity.

It's entirely possible a large group of scientists are biased and have subverted the scientific method and peer review but I consider that about as likely as Axl Rose releasing new music.

"Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne would be a good starting place.

I grant the possibility but if you understand social Darwinism then you know that it results in a scenario where human suffering and misery is the norm.

Not very intelligent.

Also overtly and disgustingly evil. 

Once again, it's irrelevant and gives way to magical thinking.

Yes, it's possible there are things that humans will never understand but if we will never understand them

The question of individual purpose is subjective and from a biological perspective it's to survive and pass on your genes. 

"magical thinking"

why magic though? isn't that an escape clause, to step over "the problem" of our cognitive limits?

how many times have scientific theories been labeled "magic" in the past?

telephones, television, planes, cars... all magic to the people of the middle ages

[SteveAJones]

11 minutes ago, Wagszilla said:

I grant the possibility but if you understand social Darwinism then you know that it results in a scenario where human suffering and misery is the norm.

Not very intelligent.

I'm reminded of George Carlin's similar comments and sentiments, and his observation that this is "not good work" and the "all-powerful" behind it should have been thrown out on his ass a long time ago.  

10 minutes ago, action said:

"magical thinking"

why magic though? isn't that an escape clause, to step over "the problem" of our cognitive limits?

how many times have scientific theories been labeled "magic" in the past?

telephones, television, planes, cars... all magic to the people of the middle ages

Nice. When I think of magic I think of Melissa Reese at the keyboards, gently bouncing to the beat, but I digress.

[Graeme]

5 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

blue jays became humped-back whales. 

Dude, what? No proponent of evolution and natural selection has ever suggested that blue jays, nor any other variety of bird have ever 'become' whales. The whole idea behind natural selection is that it's an incremental process, generation to generation, not that tiny avians just 'become' massive marine mammals. The common ancestors shared by both were reptiles.

[AxlisOld]

I honestly cannot believe this is an actual debate in this world.

[slipnslider]

26 minutes ago, AxlisOld said:

I honestly cannot believe this is an actual debate in this world.

The power of brainwashing.

Religion needed evolution to be false in order to maintain religious power and fortune.

Just like oil billionaires need climate change to be false in order to maintain their power and fortune.

If science proves your specialty is wrong, then your only option is to attack science as corrupt, fake, or incorrect.

Then you legally buy off some legislators with campaign donations, and your puppets allow you to pollute the planet in to oblivion.

Conservatives will truly be the downfall of the human species.

[downzy]

This is like debating whether the earth is flat or gravity exists.

But carry on.

[luciusfunk]

[slipnslider]

31 minutes ago, downzy said:

This is like debating whether the earth is flat or gravity exists.

But carry on.

Thanks to republicans, there is no such thing as a fact anymore.  Everything is just someone's opinion.  Evolution, climate change, recorded statements.  Nothing counts as evidence of anything.

If all the facts are against you, then your only option is to disregard them and call them opinions.

[luciusfunk]

32 minutes ago, downzy said:

This is like debating whether the earth is flat or gravity exists.

But carry on.

https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2016/02/10/flat-earth-frequently-asked-questions/

[PappyTron]

2 minutes ago, slipnslider said:

If all the facts are against you, then your only option is to disregard them and call them opinions.

To be honest, this sounds exactly like how a couple of Democrats go about things in our very own US Politics thread.

[slipnslider]

16 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

To be honest, this sounds exactly like how a couple of Democrats go about things in our very own US Politics thread.

If you want to jump to the politics thread, I'd love to hear your examples of democrats dismissing facts as opinions.  It's not something democrats need to resort to, since facts are almost always on their side.

[classicrawker]

12 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

To be honest, this sounds exactly like how a couple of Democrats go about things in our very own US Politics thread.

The difference is the Democrats don't try to pass their opinions as facts but instead admit they are opinions......some of the conservatives on the other hand not so much............and that is a fact not an opinion...............

[PappyTron]

8 minutes ago, classicrawker said:

The difference is the Democrats don't try to pass their opinions as facts but instead admit they are opinions......some of the conservatives on the other hand not so much............and that is a fact not an opinion...............

Presenting all opinions as equally valid is not a magnanimous endeavour when used as a shield to protect one's own, incorrect, opinions.

[classicrawker]

Just now, PappyTron said:

Presenting all opinions as equally valid is not a magnanimous endeavour when used as a shield to protect one's own, incorrect, opinions.