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 Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:40 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 487 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 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next
Yes. Evolution. 
Author Message
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: 7059
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1076
Thanked: 2074 times in 1663 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Yes. Evolution.
Quote:
And in doing so maybe there's an appearance of Understanding of evolutionary laws and not "just" knowledge of them.


The overlap would be a tangled morass. On the frontiers of the field, there would be a hodgepodge mix of understanding and knowledge. But there are vast tracts of the mechanisms of Evolution that we understand rather than merely have knowledge of. Including natural selection.

Quote:
Doesn't testability allow science to link knowledge and understanding?


Testability would be used to justify knowledge, but has less to do with understanding. Understanding is like suddenly seeing the picture after connecting a certain number of dots. Knowledge is that point A connects to point B. Testability would be confirming that point A connects to point B. Prediction would be a proposition that point C connects to point D. Understanding is that connecting A through Z makes a smiley face.

You can arrive at understanding without having full knowledge. However, with full(or near-full) knowledge, you can be more confident that your understanding is correct. If you have only sparse knowledge, you may have an understanding of it, but that understanding could be false. We've had enough knowledge to understand evolution for a while now.

One problem with this is, it's a lot of knowledge, and takes a while to learn. Another problem is that having full knowledge does not entail truthful understanding. You could connect dots A through Z, but stubbornly demand that the picture is a horse's ass rather than a smiley face. If you're determined to see a horse's ass rather than a smiley face, then no amount of knowledge would persuade you otherwise.

Quote:
If a theory is not in a position to predict, can it be in a position to explain?


Explanation comes before prediction. You start with a premise and a universal law, and the output is an explanation(as long as the explanation logically follows). Evolution does well at explaining.

You can use an explanation(hypothesis or theory) along with measurements to formulate predictions. The problem with evolution are those measurements, also known as initial/boundary conditions.

If you were to predict where the Earth would be in a few thousand years, you have very few initial or boundary conditions to consider. But if you were to predict what a rabbit will do in ten seconds, there are trillions(or likely more) initial and boundary conditions to figure in to the equation. Just to "model" a bunny rabbit to produce a prediction, you'd need the fastest computer on Earth with an exact virtual replica of the rabbit's brain. Even then, due to the sensitivity to initial conditions in all areas of life, your prediction could be dead wrong merely because you didn't correctly measure a single external variable. You didn't note the physical similarity of a nearby stump to a wolf's head. So the rabbit bolts, and you didn't see it coming.

The rabbit example is from behavioral science, but it serves as a good example of the complexity of initial and boundary conditions. Evolution shares that complexity, and is arguably even more complex than behavioral science.

In other words, evolution can explain, but due to the complexity of conditions, it is hard to form predictions. Not to say there aren't predictions. It wouldn't be science without them, right?

http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html


_________________
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 Aug 23, 2013 12:56 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: Yes. Evolution.
I see a philosopher had to step in here first.

Great, I'll read thru it after I get some work done today :P



Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:14 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: Yes. Evolution.
Quote:
Testability would be used to justify knowledge, but has less to do with understanding. Understanding is like suddenly seeing the picture after connecting a certain number of dots. Knowledge is that point A connects to point B. Testability would be confirming that point A connects to point B. Prediction would be a proposition that point C connects to point D. Understanding is that connecting A through Z makes a smiley face.


Ultimately we need the link between knowledge and understanding achieved, otherwise scientific conclusions are and always remain subject to change pending additional data.
Also, to say that we have an understanding of Causality related to evolutionary laws, is not entirely accurate.
Causality is not transitive.

Also, try not to patronize me with your talk of smiley faces.


Quote:
We've had enough knowledge to understand evolution for a while now.


Can you give me an example of a specific evolutionary law we have Understanding of?

Quote:
If you're determined to see a horse's ass rather than a smiley face, then no amount of knowledge would persuade you otherwise.


That is why rebels of science who work on the outskirts of the scientific community and its paradigm are vital to discovery. It is they that introduce new interpretations of data that often go against the mainstream tide. Rupert Sheldrake (spelling?) is considered one of them but is often dismissed as a supernatural kook. He's described laws of nature more like "habits." He has some interesting things to say, but if course, he's being dismissed accordingly.


Quote:
Explanation comes before prediction. You start with a premise and a universal law, and the output is an explanation(as long as the explanation logically follows). Evolution does well at explaining.

You can use an explanation(hypothesis or theory) along with measurements to formulate predictions. The problem with evolution are those measurements, also known as initial/boundary conditions.


Evolution does well at explaining but NOT predicting. And again, it mostly depends on how satisfied you are willing to be without testability and prediction backing explanation. You seem reluctant to agree with my take on this. Evolutionary science lacks the explanatory power of a science like classical mechanics because testability and predictability are non existent within it.


Quote:
In other words, evolution can explain, but due to the complexity of conditions, it is hard to form predictions. Not to say there aren't predictions. It wouldn't be science without them, right?

http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html


I don't doubt evolution is science. it's just not on par with a science like mechanics.
The evolutionary predictions listed are mostly very broad and subject to pending discovery.



Last edited by ant on Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:03 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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7059
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1076
Thanked: 2074 times in 1663 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Yes. Evolution.
Quote:
Ultimately we need the link between knowledge and understanding achieved, otherwise scientific conclusions are and always remain subject to change pending additional data.


But our scientific conclusions are always subject to change. Which means, our understanding is subject to change. Perhaps not in whole, but parts of it.

Quote:
Causality is not transitive.


Causal dependence is not transitive, but I have seen nothing that convinces me that causation is not transitive. Can you provide a link?

Quote:
Also, try not to patronize me with your talk of smiley faces.


That wasn’t my intent.

Quote:
Can you give me an example of a specific evolutionary law we have Understanding of?


I don’t think you Understand what I meant about understanding. It is not absolute. It is provisional, like everything in science. As an example of a law that we understand, see Mendel’s laws of inheritance. As an example of a theory we understand, see Evolution.


Quote:
Evolution does well at explaining but NOT predicting. And again, it mostly depends on how satisfied you are willing to be without testability and prediction backing explanation. You seem reluctant to agree with my take on this. Evolutionary science lacks the explanatory power of a science like classical mechanics because testability and predictability are non existent within it.


Testability is non-existent? Why do you say we can’t perform experiments that support evolution? That’s patently false. Also, predictability is not “non existent” either. I even gave you examples.

Quote:
I don't doubt evolution is science. it's just not on par with a science like mechanics.
The evolutionary predictions listed are mostly very broad and subject to pending discovery.


The difference is, evolution is a vast collection of mechanisms. The corollary would be explaining the evolution of the universe, built upon the scaffolding of all the laws of nature. Evolution is not comparable to a mechanical law. They are different in type and degree. The same way the Law of Gravity isn't comparable to an explanation of the formation of galactic clusters.


_________________
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


Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:04 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: Yes. Evolution.
Quote:
Testability is non-existent? Why do you say we can’t perform experiments that support evolution? That’s patently false. Also, predictability is not “non existent” either. I even gave you examples.


Hold on:
If there are "all things being equal" laws governing evolution, how would you empirically test a claim like that?



Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:33 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 membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7059
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1076
Thanked: 2074 times in 1663 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Yes. Evolution.
Where do the laws pop up in experimentation? Mating and breeding of different species.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22098/

You'll recognize a lot of it from grade school science.


_________________
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


Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:41 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Pop up Book Fanatic


Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 11
Thanks: 7
Thanked: 4 times in 4 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Yes. Evolution.
I've seen the video clips and a couple of documentaries on bonobos. They are amazingly intelligent creatures. They are very different from chimpanzees in their behavior.


_________________
Chris Humphreys
Author of "Four Seasons, Four Lessons: A Parable About Changing One's Fortune"
This is a simple tale with profound lessons about value, growth, leverage, and wealth.

I also write here under the pen name "Bach".


Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:02 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: Yes. Evolution.
Ant!

(shake shake shake)

Wake up! I'm replying now!!

Quote:
Ant:
it seems you are attempting to reduce the complexities of evolutionary development into the more clearly defined, concrete laws of, say, Newtonian physics. And in doing so maybe there's an appearance of Understanding of evolutionary laws and not "just" knowledge of them.


Well, life is made of atoms which obey the laws of physics. Chemistry is what happens when atoms smack into eachother. Life is complex chemistry.

What I was saying, however, was not that we have complete understanding of life because we know it’s really all down to physics, but that because we are macroscopic objects with SO many parts, trying to understand it purely through the model is currently beyond our ability to compute.

Like the refraction index of different materials. We know that that index is produced because of quantum laws, but to the chemist it is much more convenient to simply measure the refractive index and produce a table, then refer back to that table, rather than try to calculate it all the time.

Observation of the actual phenomena and dealing in a Newtonian frame is easier, and far more feasible, than deriving all of these complexities out of the standard model, though those complexities are almost certainly in there to be derived.

So when I made reference to physics I was saying ultimately the laws which govern evolution are exactly the same laws that govern the refractive index of materials, and explain how a transistor works.

Quote:
If there are no specific testable laws of the evolution of species, can we say the theory of evolutions' explanatory power is equal to that of classical mechanics even if it lacks the same predictive power?

If a theory is not in a position to predict, can it be in a position to explain?


I posted some of the laws of genetics.

Evolution does indeed predict, but not the same way that classical physics does.

Classical physics says “put this object here, apply THIS force to it, and THIS happens.” That is a prediction about the future based on understanding the past.

Evolution makes predictions about undiscovered species and their past.

Here is the kind of prediction that evolution makes. Say we discover a previously unknown bird. Based on a physical classification system called cladistics, we can place that bird among it’s cousins in the already existing clades. Using phylogenetic classification, a branch of the study of evolution, we can predict where it ought to fit among the animals we are already familiar with. This prediction will also indicate that it should have very similar genetics as found in the species very close to this new animal in the clade structure.

So the prediction is the cladistic classification, the experiment is comparing the DNA, the results of that test to check for genetic markers which indicate close relationships determines how well the theory predicted.

Evolution also makes predictions about what kind of fossils will be found at what rock strata and what date ranges. For instance, evolution predicts that there will be no fossilized rabbits found in the same rock strata as trilobites.

It predicts the discovery of transitional fossils from basal species to modern species. Transitional fossils like the archaeopteryx, which most people are familiar with.

Evolution also predicts that germs like the flu will need new vaccines, and the production of “super bugs” with immunity to anti-bacterial medications, and how we can work to prevent that.

It predicts the spread of alleles generation to generation, and describes the mechanism that determines what flourishes and what not. Using this knowledge we can breed our seed crops more efficiently to produce the kinds of things we are looking for with better efficiency. And gives us a better understanding of genetic manipulation so that we can do things like make potatoes more than empty calories through genetic modicitaion.

Put it this way, nearly anything that has to do with work we do in biology is informed by the theory of evolution. It IS what we understand about biology.

Quote:
The complexities of evolutionary development are by and large historical unobservables that allow only theoretical narratives that equate to partial explanations, which leads to partial knowledge and understanding.


No.

Fossil lineages are readily observed and tell a conclusive story. Modern ring species tell that same story in extant species which can not only be compared morphologically, but genetically as well to determine exactly how closely those species are related. The reproduction cycle of microscopic organisms is obvious and real time demonstration of evolution at work. We can ourselves, within only a few generations of human lives, breed pets and livestock to have the traits we desire through processes explained in detail through the theory of evolution. The only explanation which accounts for these things, and accounts for them all in pain staking detail.

Quote:
In this sense, Evolutionary Science falls short of the objective of Science - Understanding (with a capital "U").


Not at all. Evolution is just about the most objectively well-supported theory in science reinforced through a wide array of disciplines which all contribute to the explanatory power of evolution. Different studies (paleontology, genetics, embryology and taxonomy, to name a few) which by themselves may be confusing, but when linked together through he over-arching connections made through evolution all fall into place becoming head-smackingly obvious, rather than opaque and confusing. Evolution is therefore a unifying theory in the same way that Maxwell’s discoveries unified electric and magnetic phenomena.


Quote:
Is it a "second rate" science when compared to a science like Physics?


Physics is really the granddaddy of them all. Everything we are familiar with is made of bosons and fermions. That means everything we are familiar with falls under the umbrella of physics. Evolution, harmonics, chemistry, perturbation theory… all these different scientific subjects are not “second rate”, they are sub-sets. They are a part of the overall subject, which is really physics.


_________________
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 Aug 30, 2013 10:59 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: Yes. Evolution.
bonobos are awesome.

i prefer them to our angry, angry, chimp cousins.

When bonobos are feeling stressed, they have sex.

When chimps are feeling stressed they chew off your face.


_________________
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 Aug 30, 2013 11:01 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: Yes. Evolution.
Why doesn’t evolution produce a perfect animal?

Surely a durable and strong animal is more fit than a flimsy and weak animal.

Surely an eagle’s eye sight is better than a mole’s eye sight.

Surely our brains and problem solving ability is better than a snake’s.

Why don’t we see all the best features found in nature occurring in one animal? If the effect of evolution is that animals get better and better at surviving in their environment, then why aren’t all animals really durable, really strong, with great eye sight, and with gifted minds?

Why do whales, which spend their whole lives under water… have lungs? OK, sure. Evolution explains that whales have lungs because they are mammals. They are the descendants of land dwelling creatures. So why don’t they re-evolve gills? They re-evolved fins, so why not gills?

Lets tackle this by analogy.

Ever been to a big city? Maybe you live in a big city? What do you think of the layout of the city? In a lot of cities there are choke points. Roads that just aren’t laid out right leading to terrible traffic jams and aggravation and delay for everyone. Why would anyone plan a city like that?

The truth is that they weren’t planned to be what they are now. New York didn’t start out as modern New York. It was once a small town. And in that small town there were roads that led to exits of the city, like a dock for instance. New people came, the city expanded, and more and more roads were put in, and more and more territory was added. This new territory still had to use the same exit, though.

The dock was still in the same place, so the new territories had roads that led to that same dock. Ok, why not re-locate the dock so that you can make a cleaner, more efficient route? Well, you could move the dock, but now all the roads lead to the site of the old dock…

If you re-locate the major dock then you have to re-route the roads and there are all kinds of problems with that. There are block and blocks of buildings in the way. All the businesses of the city have sprouted where they did in relationship to the old dock for a reason! Traffic! So moving the dock might not be so hard, but all the infrastructure that relies on the dock would need to be changed too! So a new dock isn’t all that expensive. It might even make more sense to put it someplace else… but moving the main dock means changing a whole lot about the city.

Now we want to add in a bridge. Where do you put the bridge? Well, all the roads are already leading to the vicinity of the dock area. If you put the new bridge there then you don’t have to change much about the city to facilitate this new way to enter and exit the city. But if you put the bridge somewhere else, you run into the same issues you had with moving the dock. All the time energy and money that’s been put into the city was done with established traffic in mind. If you re-route traffic to a part of the city that used to be strictly residential, then you have set into motion changes which might not be easy to predict. How many instances do you know of where a new highway is run parallel to the old one, but it’s 20 miles away from the original… now all those little towns that grew up on the old road die off and have to be moved, or they just empty out.

There’s been a lot of resources put into what came before and it’s always cheaper and easier to simply modify what’s already in place than it is to completely re-build with a better plan… even if that new plan is a drastically better plan.

Think of that. Do you doubt that someone could re-design your home town from the ground up and improve a whole lot about where you live? Maybe you yourself could imagine big changes that would improve things. Why doesn’t it get done? Because it would be a HUGE investment, and it would completely disrupt the town while it was being done.

This same principle is in effect when you think of converting to new technologies like solar power, or electric cars. So much has already been sunk into oil pipelines and gas engine architecture (fuel stations, repair shops etc..) that it always looks far more attractive to fix what we’ve got than make something new.

And it also always looks like what you’ve already got is better than this new thing. The internal combustion engine, once again, is a better engine than an electric drive train. BUT… that internal combustion engine has been refined for decades, and the electric drive train is brand new.

With that in mind, why do whales have lungs? Gills would be undeniably better for whales. But it’s way easier to just hold your breath longer than it would be to transition to a different way to oxygenate your blood. So as whales continue to evolve, they won’t get gills back, even though it’s a much better plan. Too much has already been invested in lungs. Instead the lungs will get better and better at holding air, and stretching that oxygen for as long as possible.

These fully functioning lungs are like the internal combustion engine. A new set of gills, which would be tiny and weak and barely functional, when being newly derived, look like a terrible thing to bet on compared to the well developed lungs of the whale.

It’s comparing “the end game” of one strategy against a fuzzy idea of another. Even though the end game of that fuzzy idea would vastly out-perform the current strategy.

But they got fins back!

No, they got flattened feet. Feet that were better at pushing water around. Not fins. Fins would probably be better.

The lesson here is that new structures emerge from what was present before hand. If you’ve already got a dexterous appendage, like an elephant’s nose, it is far more cost effective to develop that further than to grow a brand new dexterous appendage, like proportional human arms and hands.


_________________
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 Aug 30, 2013 4:09 pm
Profile
Years 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: Yes. Evolution.
Lewis Black on evolution

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

:lol: too funny :lol:



Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:28 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: Yes. Evolution.
Dragon video.

I will buy one of these with my tax returns next year.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-576 ... ing-robot/

But this dragon couldn't exist.

Obviously it breathes fire, and that's a no-no, though creatures like the bombadier beatle give some indication of what it COULD do, if sent down the right evolutionary path.

The main problem with this dragon is that it has six limbs. Two front legs, two back legs, and two wings.

There is no terrestrial vertebrate lineage with six limbs. So even though there are a mess of dinosaurs we've never discovered, there is almost certainly no example which would fit the model in the video.

As for dragons with wings attached to front legs? How about Quetzalcoatlus?

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

Image


_________________
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.


Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:53 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: Yes. Evolution.
As products of blind evolutionary forces, do homo sapiens have purposeful intent?



Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:41 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 membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7059
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1076
Thanked: 2074 times in 1663 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Yes. Evolution.
Predators intend to eat us. Their intention is scary! I intend not to be eaten.


_________________
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


Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:34 pm
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: Yes. Evolution.
Quote:
Ant:
do homo sapiens have purposeful intent?


Yes.

Humans have invented purpose and intent, or attributed the same for a wide variety of things.


_________________
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.


Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:59 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 487 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 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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