Darwin and Evolution

Dave!

I'm also intrigued.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Clearly it is something considerably more than not believing in God.

a = 'without'
theism = 'belief in God(s)'

Surely thats it?

lookinforpicnic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Clearly it is something considerably more than not believing in God.

Enlighten us...

bogwalrus

lookinforpicnic wrote: »

What are you on about..? Atheists simply don't believe in a little fairy tale that we were told as kids, thats it.. "serious though system"

I think what he means by serious thought system is the paradigm in which we think in, in this day and age. As in being a non religious person who sees science as what dictates the physical rules of the universe and Evolution as being the best possible explanation for the abundant species on our planet but this not being focused or nurtured in the right frame of mind (or paradigm).

Once again society being the tainter of what could be described as the right paradigm.

Fanny Cradock

I've moved my reply to Scofflaw's thread here:


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055230688

CerebralCortex

I suppose I would be interested in trying make Irish society a more secular place.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If atheism was merely not believing in God(s) then that should be that really. You could all go on about your lives as happy as Larry - eating babies and mugging Christians and so on.

Your belief in God is all thats stopping you from eating babies?

Fanny Cradock

Nah, as I said before they give me indigestion. Gave 'em up with the smokes.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Nah, as I said before they give me indigestion. Gave 'em up with the smokes.

Why do you even come here? Is this all an elaborate troll?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hey Soul Winner,

Just read the whole thread. You were given an especially rude set of initial answers.

The people who gave you those answers should realise that evolution makes no intuitive sense & it's not difficult to understand your position.

Anyway I first got my head around it when I did evolution as part of first year biology for Food Science.

To understand human evolution more I'd recommend "Human Instinct" by Robert Winston. I think he reads easier than Dawkins & he's somewhat religious himself so you might feel less resentful toward his writing.

Soul Winner

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Hey Soul Winner,

Just read the whole thread. You were given an especially rude set of initial answers.

The people who gave you those answers should realise that evolution makes no intuitive sense & it's not difficult to understand your position.

Anyway I first got my head around it when I did evolution as part of first year biology for Food Science.

To understand human evolution more I'd recommend "Human Instinct" by Robert Winston. I think he reads easier than Dawkins & he's somewhat religious himself so you might feel less resentful toward his writing.

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I respect that. I don't feel resentful towards anyone's writings. What I feel resentful against is the reaction of some to book and papers that are somewhat non-conformist to Darwinian evolutionary theory. Which said books and papers that attempt to present differing positions to or are variants of this theory that might or might not be true, but are nonetheless systematically met with hostility, derision, and scorn without these differing positions ever being looked at and scrutinised by their detractors.

Those who subscribe to the neo-Darwinists view may just be right about these contrary ideas regarding Darwinian evolutionary theory but their reactions are worrying nonetheless. To blanket poo poo every non Darwinian evolutionary theory conforming book with name calling and prejudice should be worrying to everyone both inside and outside the scientific community, because that poo poo-ing smacks of non scientific neo-fascist self deification which is bound to eventually keel over and smash to pieces due simply to the top heaviness of its own self aggrandisement.

There is one beautiful thing about science that should remain a constant and that is it should always try to test and scrutinise its own theories to the utmost to make sure that those theories are right and true. But from books that I’ve read thus far in my quest to learn more about both sides of the argument there seems to be an almost inquisitionalist position held within the higher echelons of the scientific community that refuses to be put on trial about anything they hold sacred and hence responding to it with the aforementioned expletives. I can understand why they react that way to the religious fundamentalists who regard them as evil and going to hell and so on when they themselves are as bad if not worse on the other side of the spectrum when it comes to religion. But when those within the scientific community itself put forth valid and well researched contra Darwinian evolutionary arguments they should not be thrown out with the proverbial bath water because they are being confused with siding with the creationists or intelligent design proponents.

As far as I have read thus far these scientists are just not convinced that evolution by natural selection coupled with random mutation is true, as it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is in fact the method by which all living things exist and have their being, but all the while it has become the sacred cow of biology not to be criticised or scrutinised to any degree unless the contra theories are no less than as Richard Milton puts it "Paradigm Shattering" in their affect.

daveyjoe

You tend to hear the same re-hashed creationist arguments that can be put to bed when you have a basic understanding of evolution. This is why evolutionary proponents tend to get frustrated and possibly even a bit condescending in their remarks. I think the general feeling is that if you haven't taken the time to research and understand evolution (outside of creationist propaganda) then you need to do so because you really need to see the big picture instead of asking a litany of questions that have been answered time and time again.

As Bottle_Of_Smoke suggest, I've heard that "Human Instinct" is a good book for religious people coming to terms with evolution (I haven't read it myself) so perhaps you should start there.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

What I feel resentful against is the reaction of some to book and papers that are somewhat non-conformist to Darwinian evolutionary theory. Which said books and papers that attempt to present differing positions to or are variants of this theory that might or might not be true, but are nonetheless systematically met with hostility, derision, and scorn without these differing positions ever being looked at and scrutinised by their detractors.

In my experience the people who react badly to such materials have in fact read them, and can explain in detail why they protest such books. Someone who deliberately misrepresents evolution while criticising it is worthy of scorn. Someone who utterly misunderstands evolution while slamming it is worthy of derision.

I don't think any of the posters here have ever said anything along the lines of "What!? A book that contradicts evolution! It must be wrong!" They invariably say something like "Ah yes, I've read a review of that, apparently the author completely misrepresents the role of genetic mutation in the evolutionary process, and then uses his conclusions to attack the theory" etc. And that is a very important difference.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I respect that. I don't feel resentful towards anyone's writings. What I feel resentful against is the reaction of some to book and papers that are somewhat non-conformist to Darwinian evolutionary theory.

The problem Soul Winner is that whole argument, that the modern science elite censors and stifles debate over controversial subjects like challenging current thinking of Darwinian evolution, is actually just Creationist nonsense.

It is a way for Creationists to explain why their seemingly Earth shattering theories and new interpretation of evidence are not being taken seriously by the scientific mainstream, other than the fact that these Earth shattering theories are simply nonsense.

There has actually been huge and long lasting debate over nearly every aspect of evolutionary science. Someone like Gould spent most of his time in debates and arguments with other biologists like Smith and Dawkins.

Rather than being censored or stifled these debates (which often feel into argument) provided great entertainment for scientists.

The problem in recent years is that maverick Creationist have demanded the same type of thing from their "science" and have found that instead of a serious debate they are simply ignored

So why are Creationists ignored where as someone like Gould would be debated and argued with?

Because Gould has the science.

The problem with Creationism, or a book like Miltons, isn't that it challenges current thinking on evolution. The problem is that it does so in really stupid idiotic manner without any proper science to back it up.

It is like 3 police detectives at a crime science arguing over how exactly they think the victim was killed. It appears he was shot. But shot from where, and by who? They all have different idea based on different assessments. They are arguing with each other but they all respect each others assessments, even if they don't agree.

And then a 4th detective comes in and says "How do we know wild cats escaped from the zoo didn't kill this guy"

The 3 other detectives all look at him for a minute, look at the guy lying there with a bullet hole, and then go back to discussing it among themselves.

The 4th detective gets mad that he isn't being taken seriously and storms off complaining that these detectives are jealous of him, that they are out to get him, that they hate the fact he has the answers etc etc, any thing other than admitting that his "wildcat" theory is simply nonsense.

That is kinda what it is like watching Creationists and anti-Evolutionists throwing their toys out of the pram and crying "censorship!!" every time they are ignored by the mainstream scientific establishment.

They aren't being censored, they are being ignored. They are being ignored because what they are saying is stupid. And like the 4th cop, everyone realizes that except them.

Soul Winner wrote: »

To blanket poo poo every non Darwinian evolutionary theory conforming book with name calling and prejudice should be worrying to everyone both inside and outside the scientific community

No, actually it is exactly what they should do.

Science isn't a democracy. You are either right or you are wrong. Despite Creationist claims to the contrary, it is not a set of equally valid opinions.

If a person has a bad idea, or a weak idea, or a nonsense idea, then it should be "poo pooed"

And if the author of this idea refuses to accept the valid criticism of his idea and continues to push it without the science to back it up (thus demonstrating an agenda other than scientific discover) he should be heavily criticised by all areas of the scientific community.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But from books that I’ve read thus far in my quest to learn more about both sides of the argument there seems to be an almost inquisitionalist position held within the higher echelons of the scientific community that refuses to be put on trial about anything they hold sacred and hence responding to it with the aforementioned expletives.

And what books are these?

Let me guess, they are all books written by the "4th detective" (ie people mad because their own unsupported and nonsense theories are being ignored)

The simple fact of the matter is that all proper scientific theories are tested constantly by all scientists who work with them. There is no other way to do science. Again look at the debates between actual evolutionary biologists and you would see in 5 minutes that the assertion from these books is false.

What you won't find happening though is proper scientists wasting their time constantly demonstrating books like Milton's are wrong. It is not the job of scientists to argue with idiots with an agenda. If Milton could actually demonstrate evolution wrong he should do that himself, properly, with a scientific paper and scientific research, not a popular science book that makes huge flaws in even its most basic scientific understanding.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But when those within the scientific community itself put forth valid and well researched contra Darwinian evolutionary arguments they should not be thrown out with the proverbial bath water because they are being confused with siding with the creationists or intelligent design proponents.

Well there are actually tons of such arguments, and they are made every day with in scientific circles. There is a reason it is called Neo-Darwinian evolution after all, it is a constantly changing theory as people go "Actually that is wrong, it happens like that"

There are two issues though with people who think the whole entire thing is wrong.

Firstly, if it is completely wrong then why does it work as a scientific model?

Despite Creationist claims that evolution is not a testable theory evolution is in fact tested all the time, in everything from medicine to the fossil record. If it was completely wrong, if the evolutionary models do not represent in any way how biological life actually develops, it should be nearly impossible that they could still be used in such a way. Because at the end of the day an incorrect theory/model is useless.

So the idea that evolution is completely wrong is very unlikely. Anyone who wants to make such a claim would first have to explain how it has been successfully used for so long.

It would be like someone claiming the theory of gravity is completely wrong, without given any explanation as how then has it been used for the last 300 years to do everything from measure a falling apple to put a man on the moon.

So given that the second question remains who actually decided that this research that seemingly demonstrates evolution as seriously flawed, was in fact "valid and well researched?" The person himself? And did he do this when he found no one was taking him seriously?

Its much easier to convince oneself that everyone else is wrong than to admit to oneself that they are wrong.

In all areas of science it is up to the research to convince others he is correct, not for others to humour the researcher until it is demonstrated that he isn't correct.

Soul Winner wrote: »

As far as I have read thus far these scientists are just not convinced that evolution by natural selection coupled with random mutation is true, as it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is in fact the method by which all living things exist

Well you have to look at what has actually been demonstrated.

As I mentioned evolutionary models successfully predict future observation all the time.

If it is wrong, if life does not develop through natural selection of mutation and genetic change, then how can models based on these principles accurately predict observed biology?

There are two alternatives.

One is that it is a pure fluke, that current theories of evolutionary biology are completely wrong but they still some how manage to predict things accurately by some massive cosmic guess. Given how many times it happens that seems unlikely.

The second is that it is actually an accurate theory of what actually happens in biological systems.

So these are the two alternatives one is faced with when someone comes along and says "Hold on a minute, I think this is all nonsense"

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

In my experience the people who react badly to such materials have in fact read them, and can explain in detail why they protest such books. Someone who deliberately misrepresents evolution while criticising it is worthy of scorn. Someone who utterly misunderstands evolution while slamming it is worthy of derision.

I don't think any of the posters here have ever said anything along the lines of "What!? A book that contradicts evolution! It must be wrong!" They invariably say something like "Ah yes, I've read a review of that, apparently the author completely misrepresents the role of genetic mutation in the evolutionary process, and then uses his conclusions to attack the theory" etc. And that is a very important difference.

QFT

pH

Soul Winner wrote: »

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I respect that. I don't feel resentful towards anyone's writings. What I feel resentful against is the reaction of some to book and papers that are somewhat non-conformist to Darwinian evolutionary theory. Which said books and papers that attempt to present differing positions to or are variants of this theory that might or might not be true, but are nonetheless systematically met with hostility, derision, and scorn without these differing positions ever being looked at and scrutinised by their detractors.

To claim that these differing positions have never been looked at is plain wrong. They have been looked at, over and over again and every time found to be completely and hopelessly incorrect.

It's just human nature that after politely explaining things the first few times by the 100th time people just aren't going to be as polite any more.

Coupled with this is the basic fact that 99% of attacks on evolution are not scientific ones, but are religious or political in nature, often attempting to dress their arguments in scientific terms.

It's just where we are now - scientists have examined all these claims, and are very sure that the reason they're being repeated ad-nauseum is not for genuine scientific understanding but to pursue a religious or political agenda. They're going to get met with scorn.

So if today a young scientist was to find something that disproved evolution they obviously would have a hard time, but done in the proper way, publish your paper, include all the information as to how to replicate your work and reach the conclusions you came to and eventually, probably against much opposition it would be replicated expanded on and evolution by natural selection would be consigned to the rubbish bin of failed scientific theories.

Those who subscribe to the neo-Darwinists view may just be right about these contrary ideas regarding Darwinian evolutionary theory but their reactions are worrying nonetheless. To blanket poo poo every non Darwinian evolutionary theory conforming book with name calling and prejudice should be worrying to everyone both inside and outside the scientific community, because that poo poo-ing smacks of non scientific neo-fascist self deification which is bound to eventually keel over and smash to pieces due simply to the top heaviness of its own self aggrandisement.

Whatever. Read what you've written again, you've no intention of approaching this with an open mind.

And you still haven't done even the simplest bit of research yourself. Do me a favour spend 10 minutes learning about something real. Read a little bit about carbon dating and see if you can figure out for yourself why:

A) You would never attempt to date anything much over 65,000 years old using carbon dating.
Dating a rock using carbon dating is not such a good idea. What things are normally carbon dated and why?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

What I feel resentful against is the reaction of some to book and papers that are somewhat non-conformist to Darwinian evolutionary theory. Which said books and papers that attempt to present differing positions to or are variants of this theory that might or might not be true, but are nonetheless systematically met with hostility, derision, and scorn without these differing positions ever being looked at and scrutinised by their detractors.

On the contrary, most of these "differing positions" have been scrutinized in great detail. Because at one stage or another, most of them were on the front line of biological research. They are on longer there because they have been solved to most people's satisfaction.

People become upset about this because there is no progress in creationism. Creationists are still out there, pretending to fight evidential fights that were won ten, twenty, fifty or a hundred years ago, and I've no doubt that in a century from now, creationists will still be there, saying that natural selection doesn't exist, that there are no such things as transitional fossils, that the Second Law disproves evolution or any one of the other hundreds of out-of-date claims that are listed and debunked here.

Science moves on, but the standard creationist arguments don't. And at a certain stage, it simply becomes a waste of time trying to argue by careful reasoning and presenting evidence, because the listeners are not listening.

We've been doing it for three years in the creationism thread, and while I've learned a lot from it, I have to say that the creationists on it haven't. They're still there, sitting on square one, scratching themselves, blowing raspberries at all comers and cutting'n'pasting the same dreadful nonsense that they did when the whole thread started. At a certain point, this becomes ridiculous and treating them seriously becomes increasingly difficult, and decreasingly worthwhile.

BTW, you can find some more info about Richard Milton's 'Alternative Science', by somebody who's read Milton here. The page includes responses from Milton.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

BTW, you can find some more info about Richard Milton's 'Alternative Science', by somebody who's read Milton here. The page includes responses from Milton.

That is a brilliant article and I plan to keep it as a book mark for the next time someone comes ranting and raving about how "dogmatic" scientists are.

mcgarnicle

Soul Winner I have a question, imagine an alien landed on earth tomorrow with no idea about your religion, decided he wanted to know about it and embarked on a quest to educate himself on your position with a totally open mind.

In order to do this he read the following two books and nothing else: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

Do you think that would be a reasonable way to evaluate your religion? If you think it would be then you are insane. If you think it would be unfair then you know exactly why people here have scoffed at a lot of your comments.

Dades

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Soul Winner I have a question, imagine an alien landed on earth tomorrow with no idea about your religion, decided he wanted to know about it and embarked on a quest to educate himself on your position with a totally open mind.

Well he'd have to read the bible, too. You can only imagine what he'd think of that.

Soul Winner

Wick, Ph, Rob, Zi, Mcgar. Blind men can’t see but they learn pretty fast where not to walk. All points noted, absorbed and filed. Thanks...

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Blind men can’t see but they learn pretty fast where not to walk.

Is it really down to name-calling?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Wick, Ph, Rob, Zi, Mcgar. Blind men can’t see but they learn pretty fast where not to walk. All points noted, absorbed and filed. Thanks...

I've no idea what you mean, but if by blind man you are realizing that you don't know much about this subject, and by "not to walk" you mean you have learned that going to Creationist/Anti-evolutionist sources to learn about evolution is a mistake, then I think that is a good thing.

The most important thing to understand is what we don't understand.

As someone once said...

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Is it really down to name-calling?

Yes, I believe it's known as plan B....

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Is it really down to name-calling?

I was referring to myself :rolleyes:

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I've no idea what you mean, but if by blind man you are realizing that you don't know much about this subject, and by "not to walk" you mean you have learned that going to Creationist/Anti-evolutionist sources to learn about evolution is a mistake, then I think that is a good thing.

The most important thing to understand is what we don't understand.

As someone once said...

The problem with you Wicknight is that you are too clever. It’s ok for you, you understand that you don't understand whereas I don't understand that yet, but I'm beginning to understand it when it comes to this subject. Yes you got it in one. No more anti-evolution books for me. I'm going to find out what evolution actually is first and hopefully by the time I do it won't have changed all over again when I come back. Kidding.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

I was referring to myself :rolleyes:

Righty-ho -- I stand corrected. Or sit, as it happens!

Soul Winner

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yes, I believe it's known as plan B....

Plan B? That ship has sailed my god man. It's at least up to plan G at this stage

5uspect

SW wrote:

The problem with you Wicknight is that you are too clever. It’s ok for you, you understand that you don't understand whereas I don't understand that yet, but I'm beginning to understand it when it comes to this subject. Yes you got it in one. No more anti-evolution books for me. I'm going to find out what evolution actually is first and hopefully by the time I do it won't have changed all over again when I come back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg

Soul Winner

5uspect wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg

Just as well I don't want to be an atheist...!