[MODCOMP] Microbe2Microbiologist... well, sort of.

[tmv]

NONE of that is observable in real time as a process (from start to finish), isn't it?

It is - it just takes a bit of time.

making up stuff on-paper

This is part of the scientific method - and every single result science has made involved this step.

the REAL LIFE "rabbits and dingos" almost ended up a disaster for the LATTER - if not for the NON-natural human factor interfering.

Without the humans interfering, it wouldn't have been a disaster at all, because there were no rabbits in Australia.

So I see no reason to assume any ACTUAL "rabbits and wolves" to be capable of SELF-evolving altogether

I fail to see the connection.

and NONE were OBSERVED (from the very start) either

Again, this is not a problem. There is no knowledge that flows from observation, especially without involving conjecture.

You are free to correct me with any actual examples, but "actual" means "observed and documented from start to finish", not merely "theorized on-paper".

You don't like the scientific method very much, do you?

Because under RANDOM evolution, we would definitely have more BRANCHES in vertebrates

Evolution is not completely random, as I have pointed out above:

Don't forget that there is both mutation and selection. Mutation is random, selection is not. By random chance some mutations develop, and then selection chooses according to the immediate results of these mutations - without taking long-term results into any kind of consideration.

Yet none of that is what we see in REAL TIME REALITY

Real time means waiting a few million years - if you can spend that time waiting, you will see it.

 

[Somebody613]

...

Let's just say that I don't subscribe to this BELIEF, and period.

 

[tmv]

Let's just say that I don't subscribe to this BELIEF, and period.

OK, since you didn't bother pointing out what you were replying to: Do you not "subscribe" to the "BELIEF" of the theory of evolution, or the "BELIEF" of the scientific method? That kind of replying can become a bit ambiguous.

But since the theory of evolution is directly tied to the scientific method, I'm going to assume you mean the latter. In that case you might want to consider when something stops being a belief and becomes truth. With the amount of evidence and the number of tools (since engineering is based on science) gained from it (including the computer you are reading this on and the Internet that delivered the content), the burden of proof must be astronomical to still not have been matched. Do you place that kind of burden on any belief you find?

 

[raxo2222]

OK, since you didn't bother pointing out what you were replying to: Do you not "subscribe" to the "BELIEF" of the theory of evolution, or the "BELIEF" of the scientific method? That kind of replying can become a bit ambiguous.

But since the theory of evolution is directly tied to the scientific method, I'm going to assume you mean the latter. In that case you might want to consider when something stops being a belief and becomes truth. With the amount of evidence and the number of tools (since engineering is based on science) gained from it (including the computer you are reading this on and the Internet that delivered the content), the burden of proof must be astronomical to still not have been matched. Do you place that kind of burden on any belief you find?

I think its part of general distrust of modern science.


Primitivists are intentionally spreading misinformation/propaganda to sow distrust in science and cause divisions in society.
They want to watch world burn, because apocalypse of any kind will revert world to pre-industrial state.

And then cosmic civilization adds our planet and what was left from our civilization to their museum.
Someone else achieved technological supremacy anyway.


In caveman2cosmos you can go into space, there could be event where you collect data about various fallen civs.

 

[Somebody613]

...

"We don't need to observe events actually happen before our eyes, we just need to cutely write about them, and that will make them 100% true. Just believe it does."
"Computers prove evolution, believe me. Because there is no difference in the way you gather data from an electric appliance and from a piece of rock in the ground."
"If we don't believe in science, we will, God forbid, require to have objective morals. Please, believe me saying that there can't be objective morals in the first place."
...Was that clear enough, or do I need to explain it deeper?

 

[tmv]

"We don't need to observe events actually happen before our eyes, we just need to cutely write about them, and that will make them 100% true. Just believe it does."
"Computers prove evolution, believe me. Because there is no difference in the way you gather data from an electric appliance and from a piece of rock in the ground."
"If we don't believe in science, we will, God forbid, require to have objective morals. Please, believe me saying that there can't be objective morals in the first place."
...Was that clear enough, or do I need to explain it deeper?

You could start by quoting properly. I still don't know if you have a problem "just" with the theory of evolution or with science in general. And I hope it's not too dry where you live - that strawman could start a wildfire.

You might even have confused yourself by removing the quote - you didn't address my points at all.

A better presentation of the scientific method can be seen here: http://www.wisewords.demon.co.uk/popper/popper.html

 

[Somebody613]

...

Your reaction is exactly why I have mine.
Like I said already - I don't subscribe to your type of BELIEF.
And that applies to anything that qualifies for the aforementioned fallacies that you believe not being fallacious.
I suggest you to take a moment to think about why your approach rather asks to be called "blind religious fanaticism".
Which is exactly the approach that I don't subscribe to in the first place.

 

[Blazenclaw]

I suggest you to take a moment to think about why your approach rather asks to be called "blind religious fanaticism".

I'm... sorry. Could you elaborate? I've never heard science - if that's what you're referring to, because it's still unclear - being genuinely called "blind religious fanaticism", when one understands the principles of the scientific method.

 

[raxo2222]

Your reaction is exactly why I have mine.
Like I said already - I don't subscribe to your type of BELIEF.
And that applies to anything that qualifies for the aforementioned fallacies that you believe not being fallacious.
I suggest you to take a moment to think about why your approach rather asks to be called "blind religious fanaticism".
Which is exactly the approach that I don't subscribe to in the first place.

Without science and scientific method we still would be in medieval era lol

 

[Somebody613]

The very fact that almost none of you realize the crucial difference between "observed" and "inferred" - is the point I'm making to begin with.
Instead, you focus on a clearly false dichotomy of "accepting science OR rejecting science", without separating "science" itself into "observed" and "inferred".
To you, "acceptance of ALL science" automatically gets opposed by "rejecting ALL science", without any in-between stances that would actually JUDGE science per theory.
Computers and gravity work because they are observable - but evolution and Big Bang are merely assertions because they are NOT observable.
Yet you actively fight any approach that would SEPARATE each and every scientific theory based on how TESTABLE and OBSERVABLE those are.
If such approach isn't "blind religious belief"...

 

[raxo2222]

The very fact that almost none of you realize the crucial difference between "observed" and "inferred" - is the point I'm making to begin with.
Instead, you focus on a clearly false dichotomy of "accepting science OR rejecting science", without separating "science" itself into "observed" and "inferred".
To you, "acceptance of ALL science" automatically gets opposed by "rejecting ALL science", without any in-between stances that would actually JUDGE science per theory.
Computers and gravity work because they are observable - but evolution and Big Bang are merely assertions because they are NOT observable.
Yet you actively fight any approach that would SEPARATE each and every scientific theory based on how TESTABLE and OBSERVABLE those are.
If such approach isn't "blind religious belief"...

There are observations and measurements, that support evolution and big bang.
Those are theories, just like there are multiple theories of gravity.
Evolution works, as we can test it by selective breeding various organisms.
Big bang isn't tangible as evolution, but still it is current best theory matching astronomical observations.

Read wikipedia about big bang or evolution - it should be sufficiently good for basic level of understanding.

 

[Blazenclaw]

Those are theories, just like there are multiple theories of gravity

I would be a little careful on nomenclature here (mostly just to be pedantic); theories are widely accepted hypotheses, e.g. the big bang is a theory as it predicts and matches very well with pretty much every experiment and measurement we can think of, whereas there are multiple competing hypotheses on the exact implementation of gravity on a micro level.

Edit: Ah bollocks, I was trying to move this discussion to the philosophy thread where it's more relevant lol

 

[raxo2222]

I would be a little careful on nomenclature here (mostly just to be pedantic); theories are widely accepted hypotheses, e.g. the big bang is a theory as it predicts and matches very well with pretty much every experiment and measurement we can think of, whereas there are multiple competing hypotheses on the exact implementation of gravity on a micro level.

Edit: Ah ****, I was trying to move this discussion to the philosophy thread where it's more relevant lol

I meant older theories of gravity like Newton's one and general relativity, which is expansion to Newton's theory of gravity.

And yeah, I tried to move it to political philosophy, but someone else replied here anyway, so its just split into two threads.

 

[Somebody613]

Oopsie.
Let's STOP HERE, then.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Keep in mind guys, that I'm really just suggesting that IF you assume there are intellects guiding evolution, and there is cause to think there may be despite the potential validity of all current evolutionary theories (which do have some challenges to them mind you that I have not gone out to research and post here), then it would be a great way to frame a GAME design - that you take up the perspective of such an intelligence and have to generate life energy by having your species survive and thrive and after you have gathered enough can try new adaptations, seeking to try new ones that will continuously give you improvements in thrival and complexity of design (more complex designs would earn more energy for surviving than smaller simpler life forms). So whether that's how the world really operates or not, it's an easy way to suspend disbelief for the sake of giving players a portal into the process of evolution and a game to play at all. The objective would be to complexify and spread to all corners of the galaxy and beyond. You may be able to successfully argue that life doesn't HAVE this objective, and maybe that's true, but in a game, such an objective would make sense - and an objective is necessary for a game to be one.

 

[TPEHEP]

Klik - "tech tree" of evolution made by me a few years ago

 

[raxo2222]

Klik - "tech tree" of evolution made by me a few years ago

Unauthorized error. So it was deleted or its private only.

 

[TPEHEP]

Unauthorized error. So it was deleted or its private only.

Try now

 

[raxo2222]

Try now

Now it works

 

[Thunderbrd]

Klik - "tech tree" of evolution made by me a few years ago

Just glancing in on it, have you considered how you would ensure that certain things deny the possibility of selecting other things?