Woman aborts her child because its "good for the planet"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
This reflects a logical fallacy that we can call "Best in Class." Also, question-begging. Also, special-pleading. Also, shifting-the-burden-of-proof. An analogy:
'Bubba' is on trial for the premeditated murder of Mr Jones. The prosecution is making its final argument: "... And so in conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, while the Defense has blown holes all through the case we have presented, the fact reamins that 'Bubba Done It!' is the explanation we have for the heinous murder of Mr Jones. Therefore, I call upon you to convict Bubba of this heinous muder!"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence.
This claim itself is false, on both particulars: 1) 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing. 1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest." 2) "the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium") Or, if you look at it another way, the claim is false on all three particulars: 3) 'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!
Ilíon wrote:
- 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing.
Sure it does, especially in concert with our understanding of molecular biology and biochemistry. Do you really think evolution exists in a vacuum?
Ilíon wrote:
1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest."
Wow, a quote from a hundred years ago. You've really captured the pulse of modern biology with that one. But he's right - natural selection doesn't explain that - genetics and molecular biology does. Ever hear of the modern synthesis? Gee, that just might have happened after 1904.
Ilíon wrote:
"the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium")
No, it's completely consistent. Besides, whining about how incomplete the fossil record is these days is disingenuous with the information gleaned thanks to recent advances in genomics, improved sequencing techniques, and the greater computing power available to organize the information.
Ilíon wrote:
'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!
Sure it is. It's testable and falsifiable. I hope this post leads you into a greater appreciation and understanding of such a diverse, complicated, and rewarding scientific field. Sincerely, Fisticuffs, B.Sc Molecular Biology
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not true at all. Science is by definion a-religious. It exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes. A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
Hits the nail on the head of how science has changed and become 'broken' in the past few decades. When a scientific theory no longer has any need to be true then science is in deep, deep trouble. When the purpose of science becomes justification for atheism as
Stan Shannon wrote:
exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes
implies then it is no longer science at all and has becomes an anti-religion, a religion which denies its status as one, therefore resting on a lie and falsifying itself and undermining all its claims without further need for examination. This ways lies the death of science which I have posted about before and is certainly a worse and more likely 21st global catastrophe than GW.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Hits the nail on the head of how science has changed and become 'broken' in the past few decades. When a scientific theory no longer has any need to be true then science is in deep, deep trouble.
Why? Newton's theories did not represent truth. But they did represent useful predictability. The same thing will certainly be true for Einstein and other modern theories. They will in time be overthrown in favor of theories of more accurate predictability. Science is not a search for truth, it is merely a humble search for predictability - ie to be able to sufficiently understand the mechanism of our univers that we can enigneer solutions that improve the state of human life. Thats it. To put science on a higher pedestal than that, to make it about the search for 'truth' should be rejected utterly, especially by religious people.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
implies then it is no longer science at all and has becomes an anti-religion, a religion which denies its status as one, therefore resting on a lie and falsifying itself and undermining all its claims without further need for examination.
I agree completely with that point. Science has become anti-religion, and for many it has become a kind of religion. But that is precisely becuase the intent of science has been usurped by secular humanists who have made it so. The situation is precisely the opposite of what you depict.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
You don't understand evolution, you silly duffer. The reason that the majority of biologists don't have a satisfactory grasp of it is, as you'd probably know, explained a tiny bit further in the article. People assume that they know all about it - I think you'll find that amateurs usually overestimate their abilities in a chosen field. They also speculate too loudly, and spread disinformation. What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Science at its best is the quest to understand the what and how and when, the mechanism, where theology addresess the why. When they work together as they should science comes close to what has been described as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'. I cannot think of a more rewarding career or fufilling pastime than that.
Not true at all. Science is by definion a-religious. It exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes. A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
That fucks up AGW gthen.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Time will tell.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
Noncontinuous fosil records I would say.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
There are plenty of reasons that that could have happened, but as far as I know, apart from a few anomalies, the fossil record is actually pretty good.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
'Modern evolutionary theory' in a nutshell: "If one adds '-1' to '0' enough times (recurrsively, if need be), one can acheive '1'" :laugh:
Your analogy is retarded. In fact, it's nothing whatsoever like evolution. What it does do, however, is paint a rather clear picture as to why you have no idea about anything.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
This reflects a logical fallacy that we can call "Best in Class." Also, question-begging. Also, special-pleading. Also, shifting-the-burden-of-proof. An analogy:
'Bubba' is on trial for the premeditated murder of Mr Jones. The prosecution is making its final argument: "... And so in conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, while the Defense has blown holes all through the case we have presented, the fact reamins that 'Bubba Done It!' is the explanation we have for the heinous murder of Mr Jones. Therefore, I call upon you to convict Bubba of this heinous muder!"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence.
This claim itself is false, on both particulars: 1) 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing. 1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest." 2) "the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium") Or, if you look at it another way, the claim is false on all three particulars: 3) 'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!
Another retarded analogy. You seem to be assuming that science is as moronic as you are. Scientists don't cling to theories if they are proven wrong. It's completely testable as well, and has been replicated many times. Antibiotic resistant bacteria stand testament to that. Also, evolutionary theory doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, but that is definitely not ignored by other branches. And, in fact, they're coming along quite nicely. And I'll think you'll find that the fossil record isn't quite *contrary* at all. Yes, there are a few anomalies, things that any statistician will tell you are completely reasonable (mathematics can be considered a science too). However, generally, things are found where they should be found, and when they aren't, it's completely in the spirit of science to find out why. By the way, how is 'modern evolutionary theory' in no way scientific?
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
There are plenty of reasons that that could have happened, but as far as I know, apart from a few anomalies, the fossil record is actually pretty good.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
It seems that evoloution lurches from one stable state to another. We dont have in-between states. Where is the part eye for example? What do you think is the glaringly obvious fault with evoloutionary theory?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
It seems that evoloution lurches from one stable state to another. We dont have in-between states. Where is the part eye for example? What do you think is the glaringly obvious fault with evoloutionary theory?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I have to go in a sec, but I suggest you look up the pineal gland in other animals.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
I have to go in a sec, but I suggest you look up the pineal gland in other animals.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
It seems that evoloution lurches from one stable state to another. We dont have in-between states. Where is the part eye for example? What do you think is the glaringly obvious fault with evoloutionary theory?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
It seems that evoloution lurches from one stable state to another. We dont have in-between states.
Bollocks. There are plenty of transitional forms in the fossil record.
fat_boy wrote:
Where is the part eye for example?
Bollocks again. Eyes exist in nature in a near continuum of sophistication --- from light sensitive cells (able to only distinguish light from dark but not distinguish physical forms) to eyes better than human eyes.
John Carson
-
fat_boy wrote:
It seems that evoloution lurches from one stable state to another. We dont have in-between states.
Bollocks. There are plenty of transitional forms in the fossil record.
fat_boy wrote:
Where is the part eye for example?
Bollocks again. Eyes exist in nature in a near continuum of sophistication --- from light sensitive cells (able to only distinguish light from dark but not distinguish physical forms) to eyes better than human eyes.
John Carson
-
Pineal gland? You call that glaring? :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Sorry that was so brief, I was literally being rushed out of the door as I wrote it. The pineal gland is sensitive to light, and in some animals it actually acts as a rudimentary eye. Also, some fish have very primitive eyes, because they spend so much time in the darkness. There are plenty of 'half-way eyes' in nature. But as for glaringly obvious faults, I don't know of any. I wanted to hear what others thought was glaringly obviously wrong.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
Sorry that was so brief, I was literally being rushed out of the door as I wrote it. The pineal gland is sensitive to light, and in some animals it actually acts as a rudimentary eye. Also, some fish have very primitive eyes, because they spend so much time in the darkness. There are plenty of 'half-way eyes' in nature. But as for glaringly obvious faults, I don't know of any. I wanted to hear what others thought was glaringly obviously wrong.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
Yeah, I must admit the eye thing was a bit of a long shot. I havent looked into evoloution too much, biology bores the pants off me to tell the truth. I just recall seing somewhere about the developement of the eye and how unlikely it was. I obviously dont know enough to argue it effectively.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Yeah, I must admit the eye thing was a bit of a long shot. I havent looked into evoloution too much, biology bores the pants off me to tell the truth. I just recall seing somewhere about the developement of the eye and how unlikely it was. I obviously dont know enough to argue it effectively.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Nah, biology is cool. :cool:
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
Nah, biology is cool. :cool:
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Nah, biology is cool.
I prefered Physics and Chemistry. Nothing like making explosives and stuff. Biology was just smelly. Dead things in alcohol, disecting frogs, god it was dull. The only good thing about it was my mate and I explored a different kind of biology during the lesson.:cool:
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
No, it's what you want to do to the Jews.
Well, at least his sort isn't prejudiced ... they also want to do it to you and me. What a bummer it must be to know that you and I have something in common, even if at second-hand. :laugh:
modified on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 7:35 AM
Not quite - Christians are given dhimmi status. Godless heathens like me are generally killed with enthusiasm!
Everything is bleak. It's the middle of the night. You're all alone and the dummies might be right. Outside the darkness lurks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Nah, biology is cool.
I prefered Physics and Chemistry. Nothing like making explosives and stuff. Biology was just smelly. Dead things in alcohol, disecting frogs, god it was dull. The only good thing about it was my mate and I explored a different kind of biology during the lesson.:cool:
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
OK, I concede - the theory behind biology is interesting, mostly to do with physiology and anatomy and stuff.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
OK, I concede - the theory behind biology is interesting, mostly to do with physiology and anatomy and stuff.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.