Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:36 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being 
Author Message
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
All Star Member


Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 138
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 22 times in 20 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Akhenaten wrote:
Sonoman, you said in the above statement that:

Quote:
Souls come with the formation of each individual human being. Souls are unique to each person and cannot be reincarnated into another body because each body has its own unique soul and no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind.


So according to you the soul is in the brain and the body. What happens when you share a body like these conjoined twins that only have one body but two heads?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... China.html

Look at these poor parasitic twins. How many souls?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=betgxtosi7Y


Who gets the soul in this case?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57IcN9DWXo


What about when there are two bodies but one shared brain such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lQ_QBxdwQ

What about when you have one body and a head but no brain such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... pzKNI&NR=1

:mrgreen:


It's a no-brainer, Akhenaten. They're called "freaks" and without abnormalities in genetic code transmission happening here and there, evolutionary change itself would not occur. I have no idea what is going on soul-wise with those examples you cite that are exceptions to Sonoman's Official Biomystical Archonic rule of each body having its own unique soul to animate it.

Youkrst, your posts are just getting cuter by the hour! You must be spending a lot of time going over each soundbite's load of sneering..oops, searing repaste. Keep up the good diversionary work, your child's play promoting backbiting and petty squabbles instead of reasoned discussion on Booklist, but I wouldn't quit your day job quite yet. Oprah may have a spot for cartoon cloud speak wisdom comics since she's never invited me on her show to tell my fabulous story. Which actually is pretty fabulous despite your raving reviews.



The following user would like to thank sonoman for this post:
youkrst
Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:18 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1152 times in 844 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
conjoined twins and absorbing fetuses are not hereditary traits, but rather an environmental circumstance. It is a gestational malfunction, not a genetic mutation.

That is to say, there isn't an allele for conjoined twins, so that if a conjoined twinn reproduced they would not pass on a gene for that condition. (to my knowledge)


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:10 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5773
Thanks: 1354
Thanked: 949 times in 815 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Quote:
Youkrst, your posts are just getting cuter by the hour! You must be spending a lot of time going over each soundbite's load of sneering..oops, searing repaste. Keep up the good diversionary work, your child's play promoting backbiting and petty squabbles instead of reasoned discussion on Booklist, but I wouldn't quit your day job quite yet. Oprah may have a spot for cartoon cloud speak wisdom comics since she's never invited me on her show to tell my fabulous story. Which actually is pretty fabulous despite your raving reviews.


Yorky is the resident troll.
His posts are by and large trollish. His behavior is overlooked simply because he's on the side of the resident atheists.
Moderators here will always turn a blind eye toward him.

It's cowardly biased on the part of the moderators to threaten to ban me while yorky tells people to fuck off.
But it's actually quite telling.
As long as yorky is in the cheering section for anti-religious bigotry, he will always be welcomed and excused by the moderators.

That's fine by me. Just as long as the moderators don't start crying when my tone becomes just as trollish, just as mocking, just as disrespectful, and just as bigoted.

Cry me a river, Mr. Moderator.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
youkrst
Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:10 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1152 times in 844 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Quote:
Souls come with the formation of each individual human being. Souls are unique to each person and cannot be reincarnated into another body because each body has its own unique soul and no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind.



How can you talk about souls as though you know anything about them? Souls have never been demonstrated to exist. There is literally no fact that can be said about a soul, other than that which was said in fiction which is known to be the creation of human imagination.

Quote:
… I have no idea what is going on soul-wise with those examples you cite that are exceptions to Sonoman's Official Biomystical Archonic rule of each body having its own unique soul to animate it.


This is better. You really do have no idea and that is the honest thing to say. But knowing this, how can you so confidently tell us what is happening with regular people? How would you distinguish somebody with a soul which follows your arbitrarily decided rules, and somebody who consumed their twin in utero who otherwise shows no outward sign?

Seeing as there is no evidentiary footing for your initial claims about the soul to body ratio, how is it more difficult for you to fabricate a rule about conjoined twins? Anything you say about the status of their souls will be equally arbitrary and without reference to the physical world.

Given evolution, how do you distinguish which of our ancestor was the first to acquire a soul? Given that we know that it’s the brain, a physical object, which is responsible for the behavior of humans, what makes you think souls have anything to do with it, other than the fictional stories I mentioned above?


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:30 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1152 times in 844 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Quote:
when my tone becomes just as trollish


"becomes"


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:32 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Intern


Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 167
Thanks: 224
Thanked: 91 times in 63 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
I thought this was the science board? How'd the "soul" stuff make it's way over here?



The following user would like to thank Vishnu for this post:
geo
Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:49 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4529
Location: NC
Thanks: 1977
Thanked: 2036 times in 1524 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Vishnu wrote:
I thought this was the science board? How'd the "soul" stuff make it's way over here?

Yeah, it's too bad. For a minute there I thought we were going to go into the topic of spirit possession. Recall this from a couple of posts back:

sonoman wrote:
. . . no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind. The Hindus and all believers in reincarnation have it wrong. Only Spirits are able to move from body to body through time and space. Spirits can appear in different people, e.g. the Spirit of Elijah reappearing in John the Baptist and John and Elijah's Spirit appearing in my work.

I love the confidence that "no two souls can occupy the same body." But it's interesting to look at the concept of spirit possession. It just so happens I was just reading about this in Sir James Frazer's THE GOLDEN BOUGH. The belief in spirit possession is ubiquitous in many religions and cultures, though the interpretations tend to vary wildly.

Frazer wrote:
The belief in temporary incarnation or inspiration is world-wide. Certain persons are supposed to be possessed from time to time by a spirit or deity; while the possession lasts, their own personality lies in abeyance, the presence of the spirit is revealed by convulsive shiverings and shakings of the man’s whole body, by wild gestures and excited looks, all of which are referred, not to the man himself, but to the spirit which has entered into him.

So, yeah, spirits enter the body and this is frequently indicated by "wild gestures and excited looks."

But here's the weird thing. Someone from east Asia might be inclined to believe the spirit was the incarnation of animals. And the Polynesians believed the person was in the throes of some rude oracle. In ancient Greece, the person was being visited by one of their deities. In Cambodia the person in the throes of such convulsions are believed to have the power to stop the plague.

In southeast Ethiopia, the majority of the possessed are women whose spirits "demand luxury goods to alleviate their condition." LOL

And then here in America, such an episode might be viewed as the work of a demon or ghost. In some Christian sects the the person undergoing this trance behavior might add a little variety to the formula by speaking in tongues which is often believed to be "language of the spirit", a "heavenly language", or perhaps the language of angels, take your choice.

So what's interesting is that everyone seems to just make up their own hoakey sort of explanation that JUST HAPPENS TO COINCIDE WITH THEIR OWN BELIEFS. So, a Christian will find a Christian sort of explanation. A Hindu will find a Hindu sort of explanation, and so on.

And there lies the domain of subjective belief. To someone outside these belief systems, they all seem equally preposterous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_possession


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Last edited by geo on Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:48 pm, edited 5 times in total.



Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:31 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5773
Thanks: 1354
Thanked: 949 times in 815 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
I respect Dawkins for the scientist that he is. I’ve read a couple of his books, both very well written.
But Dawkins is in the habit of proselytizing. His writings are chock-full of theory dressed as fact. That is what a skilled writer and orator, like Dawkins, can accomplish.

In the video Dawkins prefaces his thought experiment which asserts Man’s “greats grandfather was a fish” by stating that the scientific answer is “the true answer.”

Let’s take a couple of steps back and put this into perspective:

The theory of Evolution, accepted by many theists and non theists, however powerful its explanation of the origin of species by natural selection/random variation is a Hypothesis proposed by science.

What is a Hypothesis?
Here is a definition of hypothesis:

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested.


Now, for those of you who are always more than willing to dilute your demands for strict scientific adherence for the sake of promoting your worldview:

Evolution, as a proposed explanation for the origin of species, including homo sapiens, which by the way Charles Darwin purposely avoided discussing in Origin of Species and atheistic evolutionary biologists like Dawkins always refer to when claiming the origin of Man has been determined – Evolution MUST be testable if it is to be considered a scientific hypothesis, EFFIN’ PERIOD!!
That is my assertion here. To blow this off like Johnson is dishonest and cowardly.

The evolutionary origin of Man as claimed by Dawkins in this video and his book is NOT a “scientific truth” (Dawkins words) for it is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, nor can there be any observational confirmation to establish it as a fact. It is a “proposed explanation.” Still yet, a scientific proposed explanation at some point needs to be “rigorously tested.” Dawkins claim that our “greats” grandfather was a fish is by definition pending rigorous testing at some future time.
Don’t hold your breath.

FACT:

Evolution is a highly complex phenomena.
Did I say “HIGHLY” complex phenomena?
Yes, I did.

Just as complex is the fossil record. Johnson has implied in his garbled patronizing rhetoric that the fossil record is evidence enough that Man’s evolutionary origin has been established.
To my knowledge, the fossil record has NOT established Man’s “greats” ancestral grandpappy was a fish. If it has, prove me wrong and provide the EVIDENCE here, please.


FACT:
A Science Apostle here has made the claim that you are either an evolution by natural selection kind of guy, or you are a Creationist. In other words, “you are either with us or against us”

FALSE:
A person can recognize and acknowledge the explanatory effectiveness of EBNS and NOT support claims that it is fact, particularly as it relates to claims of the origin of Man.
Evolution is very much a working hypothesis, AKA a work in progress. It is idiotic to believe it to be established fact, dishonest to promote it as fact, and deceitful to dress it as fact for young people.
To do so is to indoctrinate a young impressionable mind that is essentially prey for an ideological predator.



Evolution is primarily Theory laden:

Theory:

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

Scientific Theory:

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.


It seems to be a stretch to call evolution a scientific theory when it has yet to establish a “well CONFIRMED explanation of the origin of Man and can not fulfill the criteria imposed on it by the scientific method; it can not be tested, it can not be empirically verified, and it can NOT be falsified.
Johnson’s childish response to my asserting this was weak. It’s also highly disingenuous of people like him who demand scientific confirmation for some things and throw confirmation standards out of the window for other things.

You are about to get your black belt in scientific dishonestly, Johnson.
One more degree and its yours.



Last edited by ant on Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.



Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:31 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5773
Thanks: 1354
Thanked: 949 times in 815 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Quote:
I thought this was the science board? How'd the "soul" stuff make it's way over here?


It became a non-scientific board the minute Johnson threw out true scientific evidentiary demands.



Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:00 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4529
Location: NC
Thanks: 1977
Thanked: 2036 times in 1524 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
ant wrote:
I respect Dawkins for the scientist that he is. I’ve read a couple of his books, both very well written.
But Dawkins is in the habit of proselytizing. His writings are chock-full of theory dressed as fact. That is what a skilled writer and orator, like Dawkins, can accomplish.

In the video Dawkins prefaces his thought experiment which asserts Man’s “greats grandfather was a fish” by stating that the scientific answer is “the true answer.”

In the video, Dawkins is simply a guy discussing a way to envision the process of evolution. It's very telling that you have such problems with it.

Perhaps it's simplistic to say we evolved from fish. It's kind of a shorthand way to refer to the fact that we evolved from simpler (aquatic) life forms. It's like saying there's a gene for long legs. That said, we know that life first developed in the seas and apparently the very first vertebrates were fish. We probably evolved from those vertebrates. So what's the problem? There are tons of anatomical similarities between humans and fish. The evidence is mounting.

"The Fish Within Us"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... in-us.html

"Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255

It is a Creationist tactic to constantly look for "weaknesses" in science, especially in connection with evolutionary theory. Look out when they start defining the word "theory." Big red flag, that.

Are you questioning germ theory? The existence of atoms? Nope, just evolution. And my goodness, you do get bent out of shape when it comes to Dawkins talking about evolution. Creationists do that too.

If you aren't technically a Creationist, you sure do think like one.

You're obviously very motivated to find room for non-scientific explanations of the world so as to make room for "God"—the great catchall phrase for the unknown.

Oh, and the claim that Dawkins is "proselytizing" a scientific worldview, that's very Creationist too. Why shouldn't Dawkins promote a scientific worldview? The scientific worldview is the only worldview supported by real world evidence. If you don't care about evidence, that's fine. Just be ready for those who claim—evidence and logic be damned!—that they channel the Spirt of Elijah.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
youkrst
Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:45 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Vishnu wrote:
I thought this was the science board? How'd the "soul" stuff make it's way over here?


transmigration?!?! :D



Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:45 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5773
Thanks: 1354
Thanked: 949 times in 815 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Geo,

Your response is mostly an attack on a Creationist's mindset.
You are acting so suspicious of my motives when I share my views/opinions and if I'm actually a Creationist masquerading as something else that its bordering paranoia. It's as if you are a member of a witch hunt covertly in progress here on the BT.
Stop with this strawman nonsense. It's getting old.

Quote:
Dawkins is simply a guy discussing a way to envision the process of evolution. It's very telling that you have such problems with it


Dawkins is a scientist with great influence because he's a prolific writer and very active in the public eye. He's just not simply some guy. It's very telling that you are not honest enough to acknowledge that he is obviously proselytizing his worldview. Why? Because you support it and will not take a stand when he and others dress theory as fact.

Quote:
It's simplistic to say we evolved from fish.


Write Dawkins and tell him that.

Quote:
There are tons of anatomical similarities between humans and fish.


There are dissimilarities as well.
Let's not get into Fallacious reasoning here.
Again, provide evidence that establishes because of some similarities, its a scientific fact our "greats" grandfather was a fish. That's what Dawkins explicitly stated.
Put up or ______ up.

Quote:
Creationists do that too.

If you aren't technically a Creationist, you sure do think like one.


Blah, blah, blah.., creationists are this, creationists are that.
Yada, yada, yada.

So what? Would you like to marginalize someone for their exercise of free thought and conscience?

Quote:
You're obviously very motivated to find room for non-scientific explanations of the world so as to make room for "God"—the great catchall phrase for the unknown.


I am confronting you on your home court - Science.
Stop with the diversionary tactics and attacks on what I may or may not be.
Your belief system as it relates to evolution in general and Man's origin specifically is heavily theory laden, by definition. Evolution is subject to extreme complexity, variation, and can not be affirmed by strict scientific methodology.
YOU LOSE.



Last edited by ant on Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.



Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:54 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4529
Location: NC
Thanks: 1977
Thanked: 2036 times in 1524 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Ant,

Dawkins is passionate about science and he's also a well known atheist. So yes, there is an assumption that the world is explained in material terms. Dawkins would be the first to acknowledge this. I do acknowledge it myself.

In the video, Dawkins is just a guy presenting a way to envision evolution. As a scientist and author, he has a lot of credibility. So are you saying Dawkins is proselytizing an opinion? And what opinion is causing such great turmoil for you? That we evolved from fish? That we evolved at all? That evolution takes a long, long time? Are you saying that Dawkins' opinions are not informed by evidence? Are you saying that the only words that ever leave Dawkins' mouth must be cold, hard data?

Again, if evolution from fish is your biggest problem why don't you read the articles I posted. Do you want articles from scientific journals? Really? If I take the time to dig some up, will you actually read them? At what point will your demands for evidence ever be satisfied?

ant wrote:
I am confronting you on your home court - Science.
Stop with the diversionary tactics and attacks on what I may or may not be.
Your belief system as it relates to evolution in general and Man's origin specifically is heavily theory laden, by definition. Evolution is subject to extreme complexity, variation, and can not be affirmed by strict scientific methodology.
YOU LOSE.


So you're saying here that the evidence for evolution is not convincing? Is that right?

Far from using diversionary tactics, I am simply trying to pin your argument down. It's very squishy.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
johnson1010
Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:18 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5773
Thanks: 1354
Thanked: 949 times in 815 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Quote:
Dawkins is passionate about science and he's also a well known atheist. So yes, there is an assumption that the world is explained in material terms. Dawkins would be the first to acknowledge this. I do acknowledge it myself.


Okay.., so what? You are reestablishing the obvious.
First you minimized Dawkins as simply a guy talking about evolution and are now acknowledging he's a well known atheist. Of course he's well known. He has great influence on people, particularly those that will not scrutinize his claims - claims of truth as declared by Science, seen as an ultimate authority. People that have a poor understanding of science will swallow anything a prominent scientist says that situates himself in the public eye.
Dawkins is using it to his advantage. I caught it by critically assessing what he said and because I'm familiar with science in general. Only a science worshiper like Johnson would blow it off with a stupid "blah" comment.



Quote:
"to convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another."


It's Dawkins' OPINION that EBNS is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man. It is not an established scientific fact, it is not a testable scientific hypothesis, by definition. Dawkins is disseminating an opinion and dressing it up as scientific fact. He said it was a fact. His books are full of similar eloquent tactics. Don't tell me they're not. He adds some disclosures but goes on to dress up theory as fact. He is attempting to convert his audience to a pure materialistic worldview that he claims is based on scientific fact. It is not. I know how I am using the word. Don't patronize me like a knowledge snob.

Quote:
I have already suggested that Dawkins is showing a way to envision the process of evolution. Do you disagree with that assessment?


Too bad Dawkins never says exactly that. And he certainly didn't say it in the video.
I disagree with Dawkins' delivery. He's too smart NOT TO KNOW WTF HE's DOING.
I'd like to think you are too.
I'm not very bright. I'm the first to admit it. But even I can clearly see it.


Quote:
At what point will your demands for evidence ever be satisfied?


It's unreasonable of me to speak of what constitutes scientific evidence and what does not?

Really now..,



Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:51 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1152 times in 844 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Quote:
Hypothesis proposed by science.

Evolution, as a proposed explanation for the origin of species, including homo sapiens… Evolution MUST be testable if it is to be considered a scientific hypothesis, EFFIN’ PERIOD!!


Evolution is a theory. A scientific theory, not like somebody’s theory of “who keeps drinking my soda at work”.

In order for it to be science it needs to be falsifiable. To be falsifiable it needs to make definite predictions which can either agree with reality, or disagree. You failed to indicate what it is you think evolution says should happen, so I will now outline some of those things in this post, and how they could be disproven, but have not.

Quote:
The evolutionary origin of Man as claimed by Dawkins in this video and his book is NOT a “scientific truth” (Dawkins words) for it is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, nor can there be any observational confirmation to establish it as a fact.


Don’t put to much into the words “scientific truth”. You seized on this phrase, as you do with many off hand comments, and you are now trying to use this as a rope to bind Dawkins statement. He was not addressing a room full of scientists. He was giving a useful way to picture heredity that could be easily understood, and used “scientific truth” to impress on the listener how well supported evolution is.

If you tried to pin his feet to the ground about the use of “scientific truth” I’m sure he would want to clarify he did not mean it the way you seem so desperate for him to have meant it.

Quote:
Just as complex is the fossil record. Johnson has implied in his garbled patronizing rhetoric that the fossil record is evidence enough that Man’s evolutionary origin has been established.


The fossil record and the shared characteristics of animals which underlies first taxonomy, and now philo-genetic cladistics is the set of evidence which is explained by evolution. There is nothing about these sets of data which evolution does not explain.

Quote:
A person can recognize and acknowledge the explanatory effectiveness of EBNS and NOT support claims that it is fact, particularly as it relates to claims of the origin of Man.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

In other words you are making a special plea for humanity. Though we fit exactly into the clade of ape, and it is impossible to describe the properties of apes without also describing ourselves, for some reason (your wish that we be special) you would like to exempt humanity from the tree of evolution, and apparently no other creature.

Quote:
Evolution is very much a working hypothesis, AKA a work in progress. It is idiotic to believe it to be established fact, dishonest to promote it as fact, and deceitful to dress it as fact for young people.


There is room for improvement in any theory, but only in those instances where the theory disagrees with nature. To the extent that the theory does agree with nature, it agrees with the facts. The laws of nature say what should happen based on a study of the facts, and a theory is a broad umbrella that ties together laws in a cohesive explanation that makes sense of those laws, and the facts they deal with.

It is a fact that evolution happens. We see it in our own life-time through experiment with bacteria and in farming, livestock, and pets.

It is a fact that biodiversity and complexity does increase. It has only ever been observed to happen through natural processes involving reproductive processes and through no other means.

It is a fact that this process involves genetics and the variation and success of allele variation and that allele distinction is accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

It is a fact that natural selection guides this variance, along with sexual selection, artificial selection (human breeding animals for specific traits) and genetic drift have all been demonstrated to have measureable and predictable impact in guiding this differentiation.

It is fact that traits are passed down from generation to generation and that these traits can be traced backward through a multitude of genetic markers which can be used to cross confirm that these traits are genetically inherited through processes explained in the theory of evolution.

It is a fact that human reproduction follows the same laws of evolution as every other dna based reproducing organism on the planet.

It is a fact that we fit snugly into the clade of apes, and primates, and mammals, and stegasephalians, and tetrapods, and bilateria, and eucaryotes. This means, in fact, that we are animals of exactly the same type as every other animal which resides in these clades with us and that our divergence from our progenitor species occurred in the same way and for the same reason as our now-distant cousin species diverged.

There is nothing to indicate that we are anything other than what all evidence suggests that we are: just like every other animal on this planet, the product of evolution.

Quote:
Evolution is primarily Theory laden


The second one.

Quote:
Scientific Theory:

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.



Quote:
It seems to be a stretch to call evolution a scientific theory when it has yet to establish a “well CONFIRMED explanation of the origin of Man and can not fulfill the criteria imposed on it by the scientific method; it can not be tested, it can not be empirically verified, and it can NOT be falsified.


Putting words in bold does not increase their validity.

There is a wide range of human ancestors which has been found in the fossil record. These remains show exactly the progression of phenotypes that would be expected of an evolutionary lineage and which are unexplained by any other proposal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

If you had genuine interest in learning about evolution the research is easy enough to do.

So now, what does evolution claim, how could it have been disproved, and how has it not been disproved.

Evolution is the backbone of biology, in the same way that atomic theory is the backbone of chemistry. Without evolution much about life would be a mystery. For instance, why do we fit so neatly into the description of apes? Why do our skeletons have the same bones that dogs, whales and birds have?

Image

Why do we share so much genetic information with other life forms, even things which are so different from us? Why are there apparent families of organisms? Why are we all made out of the same biological material? How is it even possible for us to utilize the material of other organisms to fuel our own bodies? What is disease? Nearly everything we understand about life is connected to our understanding of evolution which explains all of the above, while there is no competing explanation at all. To keep it brief, I will select only a few things to discuss here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Heredity.
Claim:
Evolution indicates that organisms pass on information to their offspring through DNA and that the traits from the parents are re-combined through sexual reproduction. The offspring’s characteristics are the result of allele propagation.

How to falsify:
Find a sexually reproducing organism, born of two DNA based parents, which has no DNA. Whose characteristics are not the result of everything we should expect as laid out by evolution theory. For instance, a duck with the head of a crocodile, or a human with the wings of a dove, or a lion with the legs of an eagle.

Show that DNA is not the information carrying molecule. Show that a DNA based organism can reproduce just fine without DNA. Show that you can scramble and corrupt the DNA molecule so that it should be unusable, but the organism gives birth to a perfectly health offspring.

Variation
Evolution says that variation within species should occur regularly. That variation is always a matter of shifting size and proportion. That this variation is brought about through mutation and through sexual reproduction in the mixing of the parent DNA.

How to falsify:
Show that variation does not occur. Show that huge discrepancies are possible from one generation to the next, such as an octopus offspring with lungs, or a flat worm with the eyes of an eagle.

Natural selection
Evolution states that the variation in a species is selected by the environment. The peppered moth is an example of natural selection where there had been a wide range of shades of grey that the peppered moth displayed. When industrialization kicked off in England soot covered the trees. Those moths which were more brightly colored were then much easier to see against the darker trees and that made them easier to find and eat for their predators. The darker pigmented peppered moths were selected for reproduction as they had a better chance of survival. Their offspring were then also subject to variation through processes of mutation and sexual recombination (heredity) and natural selection worked again to continue to push the peppered moth to the phenotype of dark pigmentation.

This is also seen in animal breeding, where humans have imposed selective pressures of their own to alter the shape, size, color, strength, and attitude of dogs, horses, cattle, wheat, corn, chickens, rice… etc.

As organisms with less successful traits are prevented from reproducing that phenotype reduces in number while the selected variant flourishes. Sometimes resulting in the extinction of the phenotype which has been selected against.

How to disprove:
Show that natural selection does not work. Exterminate all variants of pea plants in your garden that are not of type A for generation after generation. If type B and type C plants proliferate despite your imposing a selective pressure against them, selective pressures do not work.

Speciation
Evolution sets out that species diverge from common ancestry and that compounding variation, acted on by natural selection and environmental pressure will lead to increasing physical and genetic distinctness which leads ultimately to speciation. Evolution says that the longer two species have been diverging the less likely they will be able to interbreed with viable offspring.

How to disprove:
Show that speciation does not exist. Show that any animals may interbreed to produce viable offspring. Show that two widely diverged animals (a bear and a deer)may reproduce more easily than two species which are more recently related (A wolf and a Siberian husky).

Quote:
It seems to be a stretch to call evolution a scientific theory when it has yet to establish a “well CONFIRMED explanation of the origin of Man and can not fulfill the criteria imposed on it by the scientific method; it can not be tested, it can not be empirically verified, and it can NOT be falsified.


In short, Ant, you are confusing “can not be falsified” with “has never been falsified”. Because the theory of evolution has been an attempt to explain everything that we actually see happening with breeding populations and how all that activity is interconnected, and how it leads to biodiversity.

It may sound like cheating to you that evolution theory has so accurately described the way the world really works that the only way to disprove it is to see something in reality which we know cannot exist.

Image
But that is pretty much the point of science. To describe reality the way it is, not the way we want it to be.

Quote:
Johnson’s childish response to my asserting this was weak. It’s also highly disingenuous of people like him who demand scientific confirmation for some things and throw confirmation standards out of the window for other things.


“Anting”.

I’ve met every one of your “challenges” head on with not a moment of hesitation, nor fear I couldn’t meet them. They have been bewildering nonsense from time to time, like your challenge that I should need to find the morally correct choice between two flavors of fruit, but never very difficult, and I’ve always answered openly and honestly. You do your best “black knight” denial and disbelief shtick,

Image

dodge our requests for clarification, and accuse us of being biased and “cowardly” whatever that might mean in context of an internet forum discussion.

Quote:
You are about to get your black belt in scientific dishonestly, Johnson.
One more degree and its yours.


Those can only be awarded by a master, Ant.
I don’t doubt your qualifications.


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


The following user would like to thank johnson1010 for this post:
geo, youkrst
Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:25 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your NON-FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm


Recent Posts 
• Coronavirus

Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:39 pm

geo

• Why isn't Joe Biden holding press conferences?

Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:50 pm

ant

• Buy U-47700 Online With Discrete Overnight Delivery Within USA And Canada

Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:27 pm

SAGORCHEMS

• Buy U-47700 Online With Discrete Overnight Delivery Within USA And Canada

Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:26 pm

SAGORCHEMS

• Buy U-47700 Online With Discrete Overnight Delivery Within USA And Canada

Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:24 pm

SAGORCHEMS

• What do you like to read on the hoildays?

Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:45 am

Cattleman

• Do you have a quote to share? Funny? Positive? Thought Provoking?

Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:39 am

Cattleman

• CHAPTER 3 of Scorpion-man I, a new novel and Superheroes story

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:57 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER 2 of Scorpion-man I, a new novel and Superheroes story

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:57 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER 2 of Fantastic Five I, a new novel and Superheroes story

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:53 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER 3 of Fantastic Five I, a new novel and Superheroes story

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:53 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER 7 of Terrie, The Sorcerer, a new novel of a Wizarding World

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:46 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER 6 of Terrie, The Sorcerer, a new novel of a Wizarding World

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:45 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER 3 of Terrie, The Sorcerer, a new novel of a Wizarding World

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:38 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER I of Terrie, The Sorcerer, a new novel of a Wizarding World

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:30 pm

LoicCabrel


Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank