It's very true that evolution is in general descriptive rather than predictive. Would any biologist disagree with that? But its inability to be significantly predictive doesn't make it a "bad" theory. It's just the nature of this particular study. Theories have different areas of strength.
We can't possibly predict what the next "step" in our evolution might be, if there is one.
-
In total there are 25 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 25 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
- Dexter
-
- I dumpster dive for books!
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 144 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?
It sounds like you are implying that evolution is therefore not a "good theory."ant wrote:No way of knowing because evolution essentially describes what is seen and pieces together what was.
It is descriptive more than it is predictive. Good theories are predictive and based on mathematics.
At what point did hominids become human and was that a predictable occurrence?
Perhaps you can help me with reading comprehension. Was this not your implication?
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?
I appreciate your balanced responses, DWill. And I agree with what you wrote.DWill wrote:It's very true that evolution is in general descriptive rather than predictive. Would any biologist disagree with that? But its inability to be significantly predictive doesn't make it a "bad" theory. It's just the nature of this particular study. Theories have different areas of strength.
We can't possibly predict what the next "step" in our evolution might be, if there is one.
Naturally, claimijg what Ive said is the same thing as saying the theory of evolution is a bad theory would be a strawman, tailored to wail against. (Not saying you are).
But evolution does not generate strong theories that are generate predictions based on mathematics.
STRONG theories do (ie quantum theory, physics).
Going back to what I wrote: there was no way a prediction could have been made that would have foretold the rise of consciousness. At some point the chasm between primate intelligence and human consciousness was crossed. Might another cognitive chasm crossing await in the future? Is it mathematically predictable by our current theory? Of course not. Our current theory is not nearly strong enough or complete enough. It has holes in it.
A simpler question (questions about consciousness are too hard) might be what species will roam the amazon forests in a thousand years?
Can evolution predict that? To my knowledgr it cant.
Its been said the book of nature is written in mathematics.
Evolution is not mathematically predictive. It's great at explaining what we see and what it is we dig up and what it may have developed from, but it's weak in key explanatory areas.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?
Im not making anything "sound" bad.Dexter wrote:It sounds like you are implying that evolution is therefore not a "good theory."ant wrote:No way of knowing because evolution essentially describes what is seen and pieces together what was.
It is descriptive more than it is predictive. Good theories are predictive and based on mathematics.
At what point did hominids become human and was that a predictable occurrence?
Perhaps you can help me with reading comprehension. Was this not your implication?
- Dexter
-
- I dumpster dive for books!
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 144 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?
Let me help you with your own logic. You have a short memory and poor reasoning skills.ant wrote: Im not making anything "sound" bad.
ant wrote:Good theories are predictive and based on mathematics.
Implied conclusion: Evolution is not a good theory.ant wrote:Evolution is not mathematically predictive.
Do you not see that?
Maybe you should learn a little more about what evolutionary theory is and why predicting a species a thousand years from now is a silly thing to expect. You're at maybe 7th grade comprehension right now.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?
Dexter wrote:Let me help you with your own logic. You have a short memory and poor reasoning skills.ant wrote: Im not making anything "sound" bad.
ant wrote:Good theories are predictive and based on mathematics.Implied conclusion: Evolution is not a good theory.ant wrote:Evolution is not mathematically predictive.
Do you not see that?
Maybe you should learn a little more about what evolutionary theory is and why predicting a species a thousand years from now is a silly thing to expect. You're at maybe 7th grade comprehension right now.
Will somebody tell this insulting imbecile that Mensa ;
1) Assumes that evolution is a fact, which implies that it has not been accepted by this particular Mensa group AS a Fact
2) Mensa has asked for a PREDICTION regarding what the "next step" in our evolution is, based on a theory that can not make such a prediction based on mathematics.
It's getting really old being attacked whenever someone questions this particular theory and its complete predictive capabities.
I implied it was a bad theory!!
Quick!! Someone call the Darwinian Inquisition!!
Im ignoriing this cretin until he acts civil.
Last edited by ant on Tue May 26, 2015 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Dexter
-
- I dumpster dive for books!
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 144 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?
Now you're only questioning the theory's "complete predictive capabities"
Right. What an intelligent objection.
This is embarrassing, I almost feel bad.
But you haven't earned civility.
May I remind everyone of a small sample of ant's greatest hits:
Right. What an intelligent objection.
This is embarrassing, I almost feel bad.
But you haven't earned civility.
May I remind everyone of a small sample of ant's greatest hits:
ant wrote:
Youre welcome to continue to defend the condemnation and murder of millions of Christians by an atheistic government all you want, however indirectly you are doing it.
ant
I think you stand for nothing and are useless to a healthy society.
You and your mockery of me can go fuck yourself
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?
Youre an idiot.
The fact that its a theory that's not as predictive as quantum theory because its not mathematically based is not a bad thing. It just is.
Youre the one that gets pissed off about it.
If you have nothing to add other than just crying that I implied it was a bad theor, get lost.
Youre acting like a fucking drunk troll.
Loser.
The fact that its a theory that's not as predictive as quantum theory because its not mathematically based is not a bad thing. It just is.
Youre the one that gets pissed off about it.
If you have nothing to add other than just crying that I implied it was a bad theor, get lost.
Youre acting like a fucking drunk troll.
Loser.
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4779
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2200 times
Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?
You did imply that it was a bad theory. That idea was very clearly conveyed whether it was intentional or not.ant wrote:Youre an idiot.
The fact that its a theory that's not as predictive as quantum theory because its not mathematically based is not a bad thing. It just is.
Youre the one that gets pissed off about it.
If you have nothing to add other than just crying that I implied it was a bad theor, get lost.
Youre acting like a fucking drunk troll.
Loser.
Evolutionary theory encompasses many different subsets and there's a lot of predictability within those subsets. For example, you can set up an experiment and demonstrate (predict) that female widowbirds will prefer long-tailed males. (That's just one example of sexual selection that is supported by evidence.) Geologists can predict what fossils will be found within a certain rock strata. And, more recently, geneticists have come up with ways of calculating the percentages of shared genetic material between two closely related species which, in turn, can be used to predict where and when the older, now extinct species lived. Evolutionary theory is supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines. Within this overlap there are many, many opportunities for prediction.
What you seem to be suggesting is that evolutionary theory suffers from the inability to predict what humans will look like in ten thousand years. Sorry to say, this is appallingly simplistic. As Interbane has already stated (many times I think) it's like trying to predict what the Grand Canyon will look like in ten thousand years. And, yet, we do not question our understanding of erosion, do we?
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?
You did imply that it was a bad theory. That idea was very clearly conveyed whether it was intentional or not.
Actually, I didn't I simply stated what the theory in question is not capable of doing.
sometimes they would and sometimes they would NOT.that female widowbirds will prefer long-tailed males
That's already been determined in a similar experiment with peacocks - sometimes the preference is there, sometimes it isn't.
Like it our not, that is NOT what I'd call an accurate prediction.
Don't you keep up with this kind of stuff, Geo?
(just wondering)
Ps.
Why does this upset you and Dexter so much?