schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Evolution is a lie... I won't get into all the other scientific (falsely so-called) ideas we're told.
kay .
Theory of Evolution.
- Thread starter daft
- Start date
kay .
Evolution is a lie... I won't get into all the other scientific (falsely so-called) ideas we're told.
So why are you 50% banana?
Why do you think evolution is a lie?Evolution is a lie... I won't get into all the other scientific (falsely so-called) ideas we're told.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Evolution is just a theory, much like gravity.
I suggest those who think it is just so much bunk to hang on. You are in for a wild ride.
On the subject of art, I don't think we need to look for an evolutionary explanation for many changes in culture. We make art because we like making it and having it around - some of which can be explained as a by-product of bits of our makeup that have an evolutionary role. For example, rich businessmen like owning Picasso's paintings because they use them as a marker of their wealth and power, and they like feeling powerful because the inner chimp tells them that dominant chimps have better, easier, more reproductive lives. Making the art, though, doesn't in itself provide any of that - we do it because it's fun.
Evolution is just a theory, much like gravity.
I suggest those who think it is just so much bunk to hang on. You are in for a wild ride.
Many differences between the two 'theories' there, though:
-Gravity is a power theorised to exist so as to justify in a modelled manner why (relatively) simple and observed movements happen. Eg in a free-fall of an object you do not observe 'gravity', but can observe the speed of the free-fall increasing in time. However the 'theory' is that the force primarily turning it 'down' is one gravitational force to the core of the earth. That is not actually known, but it is a term used for simplicity's sake and also so as to name the force in some manner.
-By clear contrast, 'evolution' itself is not some power or progression that is equally obvious, given we speak here of events that happen in the course of myriads of years. When you can do again and again an experiment with the free fall of some object, you cannot empirically observe evolution. You can infer it. Already a key difference between the two types of 'theory'.
The differences do not end in the above ones, but it is a different use of the term 'theory', and for different dynamics and types of events of theorised reasons and causes.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Only the overwhelming majority of biologists agree that evolution is indeed "obvious". That so-called intelligent design is pseudo-science.
It is much like arguing against AGW. We all know who does it and for what reasons, even though they have a somewhat different basis.
It is much like arguing against AGW. We all know who does it and for what reasons, even though they have a somewhat different basis.
That's par for the course in all science, though. You observe how things tend to happen, and suggest rules which explain your observations. One might say the same about 'mass', that nobody has ever observed it directly: only that we have observed that the force imparted by a moving object can be calculated by multiplying its acceleration by a certain number, and that we have decided to call that number 'mass'. Likewise, astronomers are wary about saying that they know what 'is' in outer space, only that they have constructed a model of outer space that explains all of the observations so far recorded. I think gravity is actually a pretty good analogy for evolution, if we're talking about the gap between what we actually observe and the laws that we suggest to explain it.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
I have actually heard it said recently that 'evolution is theory because there is no evidence to make it a fact', along with 'there is no evidence to prove that the Earth is millions of years old'. There was a lot of other things that were said at the same time, but I think I may have mentioned those before.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
It was something someone said that I heard. I think they would say the same thing to the 'billions'.
This is the science forum, not OT. "I heard it said recently" is not a valid source.
Who said it, and in which publication or audiovisual source?
Who said it, and in which publication or audiovisual source?
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
I don't have any sources.
Regardless, they're not right - and although it's usually wise to set more in store by reliable sources, that shouldn't stop us from discussing ideas that come from unreliable ones, or simply out of somebody's head - there's no need to appeal to a better textbook to show that there is evidence of that sort. It's actually quite possible to watch evolution happening on a human timescale if you look at creatures with short lifespans. One famous and (I think) interesting example is the peppered moth. Originally mostly white in colour, people started finding black peppered moths around 1810 - when the soot produced by burning coal was turning many trees black - and the population as a whole became darker over the next few decades, with black moths eventually becoming the largest group. The changes in tree colours gave a competitive advantage to black moths, which now had better camouflage, and the population changed as a result.
A less pleasant example is the reason why you're told to carry through a course of antibiotics even if you feel better before finishing it - if you don't, some bacteria with slightly less susceptibility may survive, though their total numbers will be too small to make you feel ill. However, these will then breed, with the result that you end up being made sick by a population that is much better at surviving antibiotics than normal, and which may prove totally impossible to reduce with antibiotics enough that it can't recover its numbers. Another is the way in which plant and animal breeders control incentives (by controlling which animals are allowed to mate, which plants are allowed to cross-pollinate, and so on) in order to produce the characteristics that they want - selective breeding, which is the reason that chickens and bulldogs don't look like any sensible animal that you might find in the wild, wouldn't exist if the principle of natural selection wasn't sound enough to make a living betting on it.
In both cases you have observations - in the former case, that trees changed colour, and the moths also changed colour within a few decades, and in the latter that a patient can take most of a course of antibiotics, start feeling better, stop taking the drugs, and soon become sick again but find the antibiotics unhelpful. Both are explained by the suggested rule that sometimes, when an organism reproduces, an error or mutation is inserted into its DNA, and that organisms which find themselves with mutations that give them an advantage in their environments have more children and so pass that mutation on, eventually displacing those who do not have that mutation. One could imagine evidence - for example, a species of black moths, living in black trees, that became white over a few generations although the trees stayed black - that might challenge this rule, and invite us to modify it (as Richard Dawkins spends most of his actually biological books trying to do) or get rid of it altogether.
To give a similar example going back to gravity, the current rule that we work on - that objects with mass exert a force on other objects with mass, which attracts the two together - isn't a million miles away, in everyday application, from Aristotle's rule that 'everything tries to get back to its natural place'. It's a question of being less wrong, or more accurately being able to predict the outcome of a future experiment with greater accuracy. For example, Aristotle would have struggled to explain how a rocket can be attracted to the Earth until it enters outer space, where it seems to be attracted (in meaningful terms) by nothing at all, until it nears the moon and becomes attracted by that. However, if you want to explain why everyday objects on Earth act as they do, you won't go far wrong if you say 'the arrow drops because it wants to reach the ground' rather than 'the arrow drops because the Earth exerts a force on it'.
A less pleasant example is the reason why you're told to carry through a course of antibiotics even if you feel better before finishing it - if you don't, some bacteria with slightly less susceptibility may survive, though their total numbers will be too small to make you feel ill. However, these will then breed, with the result that you end up being made sick by a population that is much better at surviving antibiotics than normal, and which may prove totally impossible to reduce with antibiotics enough that it can't recover its numbers. Another is the way in which plant and animal breeders control incentives (by controlling which animals are allowed to mate, which plants are allowed to cross-pollinate, and so on) in order to produce the characteristics that they want - selective breeding, which is the reason that chickens and bulldogs don't look like any sensible animal that you might find in the wild, wouldn't exist if the principle of natural selection wasn't sound enough to make a living betting on it.
In both cases you have observations - in the former case, that trees changed colour, and the moths also changed colour within a few decades, and in the latter that a patient can take most of a course of antibiotics, start feeling better, stop taking the drugs, and soon become sick again but find the antibiotics unhelpful. Both are explained by the suggested rule that sometimes, when an organism reproduces, an error or mutation is inserted into its DNA, and that organisms which find themselves with mutations that give them an advantage in their environments have more children and so pass that mutation on, eventually displacing those who do not have that mutation. One could imagine evidence - for example, a species of black moths, living in black trees, that became white over a few generations although the trees stayed black - that might challenge this rule, and invite us to modify it (as Richard Dawkins spends most of his actually biological books trying to do) or get rid of it altogether.
To give a similar example going back to gravity, the current rule that we work on - that objects with mass exert a force on other objects with mass, which attracts the two together - isn't a million miles away, in everyday application, from Aristotle's rule that 'everything tries to get back to its natural place'. It's a question of being less wrong, or more accurately being able to predict the outcome of a future experiment with greater accuracy. For example, Aristotle would have struggled to explain how a rocket can be attracted to the Earth until it enters outer space, where it seems to be attracted (in meaningful terms) by nothing at all, until it nears the moon and becomes attracted by that. However, if you want to explain why everyday objects on Earth act as they do, you won't go far wrong if you say 'the arrow drops because it wants to reach the ground' rather than 'the arrow drops because the Earth exerts a force on it'.
Yeah, that's what I figured.
Discussing ideas is fine. Throwing out nonsense that contradicts verified facts because "I heard it said" and not giving a source is not fine.
Well, it's silly, but we can react to it in two ways - either we say 'Chukchi, you're believing something you heard from a bad source, and that's silly', and he goes away none the wiser (and probably thinking we're wrong and arrogant to boot), or we say 'even if Richard Dawkins or the Archbishop of Canterbury had said that, it would still be wrong, and here's why' - in which case we have a chance at having a reasonable, remotely interesting and potentially productive discussion. At any rate, I can't see that you or I get any benefit out of feeling smug in our superior source-selection skills.
I've learned a great deal from CFC because people have been willing to take the time to write out clear and thoughtful explanations of things I didn't understand, and from situations when I've started off not knowing something which everyone else in the metaphorical room considers obvious, or believing something that most people think is ridiculous. For my part, I'd like to pay that forward by trying to be the one doing the explaining when I know about the subject.
I've learned a great deal from CFC because people have been willing to take the time to write out clear and thoughtful explanations of things I didn't understand, and from situations when I've started off not knowing something which everyone else in the metaphorical room considers obvious, or believing something that most people think is ridiculous. For my part, I'd like to pay that forward by trying to be the one doing the explaining when I know about the subject.
It's amazing how often I have Richard Dawkins thrown in my face, when I've never read any of his books, and only within the past few months have started watching his videos. I've been atheist for over 35 years, and learned the scientific method years before that.
And I've also learned that "I don't know" is a valid answer when it comes to science. If you really don't know the answer, being honest and saying so is something I respect. It's what gives others the opportunity to explain, if they can, and to figure out a way to learn the answer if they don't already know.
But to dismiss already verified fact with "I heard it somewhere" is not something I'm particularly inclined to respect, because it translates as "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts."
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Evolution is just a theory, much like gravity.
I suggest those who think it is just so much bunk to hang on. You are in for a wild ride.
You do recognize that if you jump off a building the theory of gravity has absolutely nothing to do with what is about to happen, right?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
This is interesting.
So, questions.
Is there god?
What is god?
What is the source of your information on the subject?
Similar threads
