How can evolution explain body symmetry?

Which seems to indicate the reason that Science doesn't have to worry about indoctrination is that the 'Scientific Method' will tend to filter it out. When was this ever tested or is that a philsophical decision? What experiment was ever carried out to see what effects mass indoctrination would have on the observational and conclusional characteristics of particular and very large group of scientists. I suspect there has been none. Faith in the scientific method isn't science, it's faith. I understand the basic tenets of the scientific method as you describe here. However the effects of indoctrination can be placed at a higher level than the method/idea/observations/predictions ... because indoctrination is easily powerful enough to be very thing that defines the method. Forgive this disjointed illustration, if it is one: "We believe in Evo but we find that the theory of gradual evolution is troubled by the Cambrian fossils. What explains this??? Well, it could be punctuated equilibrium..." There is a previous commitment to evolution and the ideas generated are tied umbilically to it. It's a closed loop both in the ideas that will be generated and by the scientific method that drives it - like who is better able to critically evaluate evolution-orientated evidence other that other experts in that field. Who is in a better position to decide whether the stumpy protrusions; which may or may not be precursor legs on a fish' than a scientist whose life is dedicated to the evaluation of stumpy thing - ie: the evolutionary scientist.Is not evolutionary science caught in a cycle of circular reasoning. If not, why not?

[qs]CK: But we are even MORE strongly "indoctrinated" about gravity from an early age. If what you say is true we should have a nice simple theory for that and no argument.I asked you to elaborate because I didn't know whether Gravity was a simple theory and you were heaving back the hammer on an irreducibly complex mousetrap - with me as the mouse, or whether Gravity is in fact complex and much argued. Scanning your post suggests the latter. Ya learn summit new everyday. But I gotta be careful CK - I don't know you that well ;0Gravity is something we are indoctrinated to believe is true. Correct. It's turns out to be complex. Fine. A postmans understanding of it will differ from a scientists understanding of it. Okay. But what did I say in my quote that indicates that we should have nice simple theories and no argument. I just asked by what mechanism people could resist the effects of indoctrination.I was asking the question because I'M the one who doesn't know. Your supposed to be the one supplying the mechanism...or maybe saying why a mechanism is unnecessary. You at least seem to agree that 'indoctrination' occursCK: You really aren't playing fair old chap, that's one red herring (christianity), one massive cut n paste and a 'trying to get me to answer my own questions' - all deployed in one day :0

Hi Ringo... Its irrelevant to a series of questions I've placed, why I pose what I do. I suggest the not to hard to believe proposition that the world and his brother has been indoctrinated with the idea that evolution is true. (whether evolution is wrong or right makes no difference to that). Don't get hung up on the negative sound of the word. It means simply that most people have come to believe it simply because they were repeatedly told so - not becasue they have critically analysed the data for themselves. Do you agree?Could you also agree that at least up until the time they entered science college, the average scientist is really in no better position to evaluate the data for themselves, free of 'exterior forces' than the man in the street?There are a few reasons which set evolutionary indoctrination as a class apart:It is the most prevelent form of mass scientific indoctrination around. I have never watched a programme on Gravity on tv. Neither has my mother or sisters. Mass media is awash with EvolutionIts range is huge. Rather than being a branch of science, it incorporates more branches of science that any other - though I may be wrong.The consequences of it, if it is true, affects everybody on earth: to whit - "you're an animal". That's a very significant thing to be telling people - so its very important that it's right. I don't have a dim view of anybody. If you agree everybody has been helplessly indoctrinated (up to end of college) what defence against it's influence in science? I suggest majority ain't. You say the majority are educated. I say the minority are too. Education clearly isn't the way to counter indoctrination. I agree that education will lessen the effects of an attempt at indoctrination - but how does it help if the indoctrination got there first? It's easy to measure the effect indoctrination may have on a previously clean sample. But how do you do it when the sample arrives contaminated I disagree. Indoctrination has no problem with people thinking for themselves - so long as they do it within set boundaries. If a person with absolutely no tools to evaluate evolution critically, walks into college believing evolution and leaves with a Ph.D, 7 years later still believing it, I can't see that as evidence that totally free thinkng is the process which was tranmitted to them during those years. And whilst some may go in not believing and come out believing, the figures (due to the success of evolution on early years indoctrination) are so massively weighed towards the former Ph.D-er so as to leave insufficient data to presume anything much about the latter True of Hitler ... but then again, he was in a hurry. Indoctrination in fact, works best on the young. They're more believing than the ignorant - who are less likely to give a hoot ...oh yeah.... about body symmetry (thanks for the tip). Anyway, you don't have to slaughter the intellectuals if the intellectuals (if unconciously) are the ones doing the indoctrinating...

You don't agree that most people, who haven't learned the tools to critically evaluate the evidence for themselves believe in evolution through a process of indoctrination. If not that, on what basis do you think they believe it. Maybe do as I've done and give a mechanism rather than an assertion. Remember it 'most' not you. that you heard two indoctrinations and one held sway doesn't influence the fact the indoctrination was the method by which you believed in evolution either then or when it was awakened later. I suggest you were indoctrinated (see methods by which later) How can a person be led by facts before they are in a position to critically evaluate whether the facts are indeed facts? Let's not kid ourselves here and think that evolution can be proven by headlines. It's the nitty gritty that differentiates between one conclusion and the other. Not headlines. Prior to reaching the point of being sufficiently educated to evaluate, the person who is interested in science is only being more exposed to indoctrination. Take a 10 year old who has developed enough to reach the pinnacle for his age and is fascinated by evolutionary natural history programmes and child books with pictures of dinosaurs and neandrathals battling it out. He is closer to science that the kids out skateboarding but miles away from critical analysis. Immersed in indoctrination naked when it comes to evaluating. Is he not? And how precisely does one do that? Like, suggest a mechanism that'll work for an 8 year old? You would be unusual in that. Think 'most' not 'you' when it comes to the argument. But talking about you for a second. Ever hear, as a child, the words 'Neandrathal man', 'ape turned into man', 'original of the species' 'evolution is a fact' then as a teenager 'mutation was the mechanism along with' 'natural selection'? You may be right but that's just an assertion and I'm inclined to think it may not be that simple. You don't agree then that there are paleantologists, biologist,biochemists etc, etc, who have all the same training to evaluate data - yet don't agree with evolution. Forget why they don't for a second - that's a different issue. The point is a claim that anybody who doesn't agree with evolution must be ignorant or religious doesn't gel with the facts. Maybe you have to go outside this forum to find that out - but find it out you will. By the time they don't trust you anymore they have already heard the doctrine. Kids rebel all right but they don't reject everything they've learned. Anyway there are plenty of other authorities (like peers, tv programmes, science books, an interesting science teacher) besides you, which they will continue to listen to and respect.

Anybody object if I try to tidy things up a bit and state some fundementals by which I argue? If there are points which can be put to bed it would help progress as they wouldn't have to be re-visited so frequently.Debate can easily turn into an argument as some of the previous posts have demonstrated eg: "did your physics father not teach you about gravitational theory". There are many reasons why a Ph.D qualified father didn't teach his son about gravitional theory: a bad father, an uninterested son (the applicable one), the son lived with his mother and seldom saw his father etc., to name but a few. I don't want to spend my time typing responses like this, telling the person who posted this that they could have thought of this themselves. I'm here to debate not argue. I'll reply to debate style response not arguement. There are after all only 24 hours in the dayWhat I mean by 'Evolutionary Indoctrination' (EI):
A very large proportion of the people around the world who are exposed to scientific influence believe that evolution is the way it happened. A small proportion of these have a level of scientific training which would allow them to critically evaluate the evidence for themselves. The rest, the large majority, believe it (with varying degrees of interest) simply because they are told it by folk they have no apparent reason to distrust. Not being able to evaluate for themselves, they can only have been EI'd.The Mechanism of Indoctrination (MI):
The way by which indoctrination occurs is lifelong and repeated exposure to statements which say or imply that Evolution is true. The mechanism starts at a very early age, when there is little to prevent it applying a force. MI takes many forms: kids nature programmes, tv ads, friends taunts, games played, science lessons all the way through school, popular science books, science fiction, natural history programmes,toys,eminent scientists saying it's true, early interest hobbies in things scientific, films, magazines, ..even the dog in the street knows it. The MI has virtually nothing which opposes it. There is no scientific alternative presented which says our existance is the result of another mechanism (or if there is, it's, relatively speaking, a side issue and not comparable to the mass-influence of the MI - the cogs and gears of which are listed above). Not even religion will necessarily affect it's workings. Many who have a faith: Christian, Buddist, Hindi etc will not consider there to be conflict between their belief and the acceptance that Evolution is true. The effectiveness of the MI and my contention that it has operated over many generations, is such as to have ensured that the majority of scientifically-influenced people believe that Evolution is as true as the fact the world is round. And they believed this BEFORE they were in a position to evaluate the data for themselvesThesis 1 (T1)
Nobody who believes in Evolution, up until the time they have sufficient training which offers them the potential to evaluate the facts for themselves, is in a position to know if Evolution is true - other than by the MI which has been operating on them all their lives. The level of belief may be mild, a vague belief that it is true, which they don't think about or consider throughout their lives. Or the level may be high, high enough to interest them enough to enter a field of science concerned with Evolution and thereby gaining the tools by which they might be able to critically evaluate it. Or the level may be anything in between those particular extremes. Whichever level it's at, the contention is that, up until they have had the training to evaluate, the only basis on which they can say they believe in Evolution, is EI.Other terminology: I would suggest E for Evolution. Any others that can be thought of to speed things up as we go are fine.Has anybody got anything they would like to say specifically about any of the three fundementals above. And only these three. Either that they are wrong or that they can be accepted as being accurate enough reflections on the way it happened. In either case, deal on a macro basis: the many, not your personal experience. There will be individuals who can say it doesn't apply to them but just as one swallow doesn't make a summer neither do a few scattered points on the graph deflect the direction and curve of a graph when the vast majority of points support a particular curve... should that be the way the debate turns out to show it is.This message has been edited by iano, 29-Jul-2005 06:55 PM

Hi there...A retorical question for you. Why someone would continually beat a view into someone to convince of something they had never heard of? Never heard of evolution; no tv, no books, nobody outside the household...see defintion of MI for a more complete list then re-evaluate. I take your statement to be a little hyperbolic. If it's not hyperbole and you've really never ever heard of evolution, yet lived in an average scientifically exposed society, then you would form a very tiny minority. My last post which defines some boundaries refers to what happens to the vast majority. Assuming you were even only very lightly EI'd up to this point, you then delved in deeper. At this point you hadn't the level of knowledge which would discern anything but gross scale argument. For instance, you may have read something like "Uranium dating methods have shown that the earth is in fact 4500 million years old"...and said to yourself "but my mother told me it was only 4000 years old!!" Impressive it may have been, but at this point you were not yet at the level of knowledge to understand the intricacies of Uranium dating to know if it was accurate or whether the folk applying it where using it accurately. In other words, whether Uranium dating is accurate or not is not the point here. The point is, you assumed it was true before you knew it to be true. That's EI at work. In other words, intensive EI but BEFORE you got the education which may have allowed you to evaluate for yourself.I'm saying nothing here about whether E is true or not. Just that you were exposed to EI first. That's all I'm arguing.Do you agree?

I don't deny that other forms of indoctrination exist. Not everybody in the world who believes E lives in such an environment. A minority in fact.You've said very little (if anything) which directly tackles either EI,MI,T1 on the macro scale. By all means do soThis (hopefully) will become a debate not about personal experience but about a world wide experience. Lets keep it macro not micro...

Hi WK. I agree with the tenet of your post that this may appear to create a philosophical problem about other areas of science (like is it all indoctrination??) Be that as it may. We're not dealing about the rest of science here. It's EI that the topic. Have you something to say in debate form about EI,MI,T1?

Hi there Mick. Have you anything to say about EI, MI, T1? That's the topic.

At the start of my explaination of EI,MI,T1 I stated that these where the topics for now. What happens next; for instance how this might affect a scientist in his work, could arise after the above are established, if they're established. No point in pulling the thing all over the place. Step by step, easy on the throttle and all that... ;0Anything to say about EI,MI,T1?

Afternoon CK. You going to easy on me today then..?Anything to say on EI,MI,T1?(Was riding home last night and thought to myself 'Intellectual Cocaine' is right. Ping!!....better start typing less!)Sorry, missed your last post. Why Evo? It's a free world ain't it?This message has been edited by iano, 07-29-2005 12:01 PM

Now that's what I call admirable prose. No anger, no flaming, no jumping up and down, just a gentle description designed purely to explain to another what one's point of view is. It's an ability I all to infrequently apply myself. Hat's off...Anyway, back to business. EI,MI or T1, anything say to dismantle or cause me to modify these?

And that ladies and gentlemen, is the most logical thing I've read today (bar EI,MI,T1). You are absolutely and totally 100% right. Top marks that man/woman(I did read a little around before I first posted and the discussion was ID at the time but the point is perfect nonetheless. Sorry.Off to New Posts it is with me then)

---

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable" Sir Arthur Keith, Anthropologist.