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 Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:01 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 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  Next
Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts 
Author Message
User avatar
Years 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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
Quote:
We don't need to re-erode Nevada to form the grand canyon just to be sure that erosion is what caused it.


This is yet another one of your ridiculous analogies meant to explain away questions that are very reasonable.

We know the exact rout to take to the Grand Canyon. And it's something we can repeat over and over and over and over and over again. You can do it. I can do it. Geo can do it. Dexter can do it. Tulips can do it.

We don't know the exact route from a worms eye, excuse me, "living fossil," to our eyes.
And it's not something we can "TRACE" in the same fashion over and over and over and over again.
We can not confirm it.

Once again, I'm getting tired of saying it; this is not to refute evolution. Rather, it's to expose the joy there is in guess work when you're only simply really trying to back a claim that ORIGINS can be explained conclusively, minus the customary evidence demands of TRUE SCIENCE.

I WIN
YOU LOSE :)



Last edited by ant on Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:00 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: 4396
Location: NC
Thanks: 1866
Thanked: 1937 times in 1450 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
ant wrote:
I've re-read the link and have one question that immediately came to mind (among a few others that may turn out to be non-questions:

link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 215105.htm



One more thing and then I'll leave. I promise

Hopefully, you're not going to dismiss evolutionary science based on a Science Daily article. This is not science, but basic summarizing of science-related news. The article you posted earlier about humans evolving beaks was even worse in my opinion. There was nothing scientific about that article. It was sheer nonsense probably written by a reporter with no science background who had fifteen minutes to spare on a Friday afternoon.

If you want substance, read books written by credible scholars.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:08 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years 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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
geo wrote:
ant wrote:
I've re-read the link and have one question that immediately came to mind (among a few others that may turn out to be non-questions:

link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 215105.htm



One more thing and then I'll leave. I promise

Hopefully, you're not going to dismiss evolutionary science based on a Science Daily article. This is not science, but basic summarizing of science-related news. The article you posted earlier about humans evolving beaks was even worse in my opinion. There was nothing scientific about that article. It was sheer nonsense probably written by a reporter with no science background who had fifteen minutes to spare on a Friday afternoon.

If you want substance, read books written by credible scholars.



This article is a mess. It was actually of great assistance to me.

BTW,

I didn't really believe we are all going to grow beaks by the end of the year.
That article was actually a starting point for my questions/points related to what neo darwinism points to as being a necessary adaptation for survival and what can not be seen as a darwinian "tool of survival" and can not be considered a "happy spin-off" to be shrugged at by neo darwin hardliners. It's a laziness that should be brought to light.
You know, kind of like the laziness of "GODMUSTHAVEDIDIT"?
Further more, I still believe that someone like Johnson, from a darwinian lens would rather have the beak than advanced mathematical abilities that do nothing for survival of the species. I think he believes math is just icing on the cake. What evidence he has of that, I do not know.

Please don't leave. Interbane needs your help ;)



Last edited by ant on Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:16 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years 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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
Dexter,

Quote:
If you want substance, read books written by credible scholars.



Last edited by ant on Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:17 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: 4396
Location: NC
Thanks: 1866
Thanked: 1937 times in 1450 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
ant wrote:
Please don't leave. Interbane needs your help ;)


Well, I would just be repeating the same stuff that you just keep ignoring.

ant wrote:
Once again, I'm getting tired of saying it; this is not to refute evolution. Rather, it's to expose the joy there is in guess work when you're only simply really trying to back a claim that ORIGINS can be explained conclusively, minus the customary evidence demands of TRUE SCIENCE.


Why don't you just come out with it and tell us what you are arguing. That way we won't have to speculate.

By the way, do you even know what a Neo-Darwinist is? It's a rather useless term, but even so, it seems like you're trying to give the term negative connotations.

Neo-Darwinism—Darwinism as modified by the findings of modern genetics.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:29 pm
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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7074
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1078
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
Quote:
This is yet another one of your ridiculous analogies meant to explain away questions that are very reasonable.


The analogy is meant to explain "repeatability" within science, in response to your question "Is the process experimentally repeatable?" The processes we study do not need to be repeatable. The experiments need to be repeatable.

What "questions" are you referring to that you think my analogy explained away? It doesn't "explain away" anything except your misunderstanding of repeatability within science. That is the analogy's entire jurisdiction, its entire intent.

Quote:
We don't know the exact route from a worms eye, excuse me, "living fossil," to our eyes.
And it's not something we can "TRACE" in the same fashion over and over and over and over again.
We can not confirm it.


I'm skeptical of many claims made that are unjustified interpretations of evidence. Is there a direct path we can trace between our eye and that of a worm some millions of years ago? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The scientists in the article you linked to have a strong hypothesis. It is strong enough to have their findings published so other people can critique and comment. I looked but couldn't find anywhere in the article where it says their hypothesis has been "confirmed".

Toward the end of the article, one scientist is quoted as saying the problem is "solved". I'm skeptical of that statement. It's compelling evidence that the path of our eyeball's progression is shared by Platynereis dumerilii.

Quote:
What exactly is a "living fossil"? Sounds like a misnomer.


It is not a misnomer. The phrase refers to a very specific thing.

Quote:
"still resembles" early ancestors implies that it is not a fossilized replica but only resembles something. Over the course of 600 million years, does anything stay the same?
What evidence is there to back such a claim?


It's evidence that's common, easy to obtain. Take the fossil of an organism that exists today and compare it to the fossil of an organism that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. If the fossils resemble each other, then that is evidence that they resemble each other. :|


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
geo
Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:39 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
geo wrote:

Why don't you just come out with it and tell us what you are arguing. That way we won't have to speculate.


Let me help, ant always has the same points:

1. Science doesn't know everything
2. Science can't prove that God doesn't exist
3. Religion is good, but not necessarily any actual religious claims about the world, just the idea that someone believes something other than science



The following user would like to thank Dexter for this post:
geo
Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:42 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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5832
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2289
Thanked: 2216 times in 1675 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
Reading ant's inability in this thread to understand how his critique of evolution reads as promotion of intelligent design, I was reminded of an article on the neural failure of believers. Ant may wish to read Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins, where this canard about the difficulty of explaining the evolution of eyes is laid to rest.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com.au/2010 ... r-iqs.html
is well worth reading in full. It includes the following comments
Quote:
The article 'Atheism Rising', by James Allen Cheyne made reference to a compendium of research which has shown an inverse correlation between religious belief and intelligence as measured by IQ. ... Cheyne makes reference to a particular type of thought he calls ACH thinking - or abstract, categorical and hypothetical - which appears to be mostly missing from believers ... the ability to abstract from the conditions of the hypothetical to see the new situation, and assess it... is the very ability that Cheyne shows is missing as one examines results for religious believers.

Why are believers missing this crucial component of thought which also, by the way, is essential for critical thinking? There are a number of reasons. For example, one may be that the honing of such skills was never possible, for example if they came from a home schooling environment. Another, more controversial, is that the very neural pathways that predispose them to belief or faith, are also the ones that inhibit predictive ACH conceptualizing.

An interesting aspect here, as Cheyne notes, is that many people - including believers- display quick wittededness and clear thinking, and also good vocabularies - but remained "uncomfortable with abstract or hypothetical thinking and found such thinking to be alien".


I don't fully agree with Cheyne's argument as I consider that critical thinking and faith can be compatible. But then I have my own definition of faith, such that a conflict with parsimony renders faith invalid. Elegance trumps faith. God is not elegant.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:16 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years 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: 1150 times in 843 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
Quote:
Further more, I still believe that someone like Johnson, from a darwinian lens would rather have the beak than advanced mathematical abilities that do nothing for survival of the species. I think he believes math is just icing on the cake. What evidence he has of that, I do not know.


Really?

Come on Ant. Did i not... wow.


What evidence I have of that? You are the one saying it! I blatantly disagreed with your assesment, and if you read my post, then you must have realized as much.

What does that make the quote above, Ant?


_________________
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.


Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:39 am
Profile
User avatar
Years 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: 1150 times in 843 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
Rememebr this, ant?

could-humans-grow-beaks-in-another-million-years-t15105.html

Come on, guy! It makes you sound ridiculous after reading what i have to say in this post for you to then come back with this:

Quote:
Further more, I still believe that someone like Johnson, from a darwinian lens would rather have the beak than advanced mathematical abilities that do nothing for survival of the species. I think he believes math is just icing on the cake. What evidence he has of that, I do not know.


_________________
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.


Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:43 am
Profile
User avatar
Years 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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
johnson1010 wrote:
Quote:
Further more, I still believe that someone like Johnson, from a darwinian lens would rather have the beak than advanced mathematical abilities that do nothing for survival of the species. I think he believes math is just icing on the cake. What evidence he has of that, I do not know.


Really?

Come on Ant. Did i not... wow.



Sorry, I was busy laughing at Tulip's blind religious bigotry and his inability to read.


Tell me why, from biological survival perspective, you believe having the ability to do the math required for quantum physics would increase your chances of success in your environment than having a beak.
Beaks are incredibly useful in our environment. Have you read up on them?
(remember - I'm not saying we are eventually going to grow beaks)



Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:45 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 membership
Tenured Professor


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1150 times in 843 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
Tell me why you deliberately misrepresented a position that i clearly outlined just days earlier?

You have lost a lot of good will with me on this Ant.

It isn't ignorance. It's flat out dishonest.


_________________
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.


Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:50 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
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4396
Location: NC
Thanks: 1866
Thanked: 1937 times in 1450 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
ant wrote:

Tell me why, from biological survival perspective, you believe having the ability to do the math required for quantum physics would increase your chances of success in your environment than having a beak.
Beaks are incredibly useful in our environment. Have you read up on them?
(remember - I'm not saying we are eventually going to grow beaks)


So we're back to math ability again. This has already been answered and ignored.

You continue to insinuate weaknesses in evolutionary theory, but these are based only on your willful ignorance. There must be a God behind all this, right? And He must exist in the shadowy spaces where science doesn't reach or, as demonstrated in this thread, in the shadowy spaces of what you don't understand.

Even an IDer comes right out and says that he believes God is behind it. You can't even do that.

By the way, it's pretty obvious that sheer brain power has helped homo sapien. A beak is good for specific types of food-gathering. That you can't see that only demonstrates how blinkered you are. So insinuate away. You've been rationalizing for so long you can't even formulate a coherent argument.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:50 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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7074
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1078
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
Beaks are useless to us. We have trillion dollar food industries streamlined to provide food that's optimized for us. Beaks are not incredibly useful for our environment, because our environment has been shaped and optimized for our mandibles. We have changed our environment, it's part of our extended phenotype now. That extension falls short of many issues, of course, but optimizing food for mandibles is not one of them.

We aren't born with the ability to do quantum physics level math. Is that what you're saying is selected for ant? Did tribal man perform quadratic equations? Natural selection favored us due to our ability to learn. What we're able to learn appears to be unlimited, in scope if not in depth(we can do advanced math, but not as well as a calculator).

Evolution gave us the capacity, and informational(cultural) evolution filled that capacity with everything we see today. That initial capacity provided our ancestors with great benefits. Not only could they detect complex patterns in the environment that directly affected survival, but they could communicate this understanding. The spandrels from such a capacity are unlimited. No one will argue that we've evolved past a certain threshold, one that allows us to infinitely permute information.

Your argument now seems to be that evolution alone couldn't have pushed us past that threshold. Which means you have to willfully ignore the survival benefits we've gained in passing that threshold.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:20 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years 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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts
johnson1010 wrote:
Tell me why you deliberately misrepresented a position that i clearly outlined just days earlier?

You have lost a lot of good will with me on this Ant.

It isn't ignorance. It's flat out dishonest.



I don't know what Geo is talking about. I've already stated my point that from a pure neo darwinian perspective, higher mathematics ("sheer brain power") is not vital to the survival of a species. That was my point. That is not an ID'er stance..
Geo and Dexter love harping on that because they are witch hunters. That is always their aim in these discussions.

Please link me to what you've mentioned above. I may have missed it.
And I actually at times multi-task all of you good atheists here on BT. So give me a break when i say I must have missed you addressing my primary point (bolded above)

I'll now ignore the shouts of "WITCH!! WITCH!!!!" "ID'er WIIIITCCHHHHH!!"



Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:22 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 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  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

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

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your 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