Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: a red herring?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 16 of 120 (377363)
01-16-2007 1:14 PM


Concern about Topic
This thread identifies no specific aspect of evolution, and so has the potential to drift all over the map. The opening post requested speculation from those who already reject evolution about how the theory caught on and was maintained if it's actually false. Unless this thread begins to actually do this it'll have to be closed.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 17 of 120 (377367)
01-16-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by limbosis
01-16-2007 12:58 PM


Re: Oh? Is that the case, eh?
Limbosis writes:
But, I can tell you that's just what a theory is, a guess, an elaborated hypothesis.
A theory is a hypothesis that is consistently backed by empirical evidence and that can be used to make predictions. The theory of electromagnetism, for example, makes your computer work - is that a "guess"?
Limbosis writes:
It is a bit odd that the notion did not present itself until the 19th century.
But it did.
Pre-Darwinian theories of evolution.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh1.shtml
Limbosis writes:
Yes, there are some lovely creatures in the Galapagos. But it's not much different than anywhere else really, in terms of organic diversity.
The Galapgos represented a microcosm in which Darwin's ideas could be clearly elucidated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by limbosis, posted 01-16-2007 12:58 PM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by limbosis, posted 01-18-2007 3:11 AM RickJB has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 18 of 120 (377372)
01-16-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
01-15-2007 7:14 PM


Ok, I guess I'll be the first to be really on topic.
Over the years, I have heard several ideas about this, some of which I myself believed for years.
(1) The last thursday "theory". God created everything six thousand years ago but made it seem like it was already billions of years old. After all, the ancient people could already see a sky full of stars.
(2) Fossils, radiometric decay, and all that good stuff were put here by either god or satan (we don't really know which) to test our faith.
(3) Early and modern scientists were corrupted by materialism and seeked to be as far away from god as possible, and this meant coming up with a "theory" that both is mainstream and excludes god all together. Perhaps evolution was also fueled by early communists who seeked to destroy religion.
(4) All the evidence are true, but how they are interpreted depends if one has the so-called "god sense" or not. Scientists do not have god sense so they are unable to interpret the evidence correctly. Religious leaders and devouts have god sense so they are able to interpret the evidence as was intended by god.
I'm sure I've seen more explanations, but these are the major ones I can think of right now.

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 01-15-2007 7:14 PM limbosis has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 120 (377394)
01-16-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by limbosis
01-16-2007 12:58 PM


**Bling--Bling**
Also, remember that the supposed evidence for the origin of species has been readily available to humans, WHEREVER there are animals and plants, since the dawn of time. It is a bit odd that the notion did not present itself until the 19th century. In fact, it's very odd.
Keep in mind that the evidence for a Sun-centred planetary system has been around for just as long. So has the evidence in support of the theory of gravity (notice, that's a theory, wanna reject that too whilst you're at it?). In fact, the evidence for everything we ever will know is sitting out there right now, it has been for a long time, and hopefully will be for a long time after now. Just because we have not discovered it YET, does not mean that when we DO discover it, it will be invalid, just because we missed it durring the first 20,000+ some odd years of our life on this planet.
No, I'm suggesting that the idea of evolution may have been intended as a means of eventually justifying the feeble, state-sponsored notion that one race is in any way superior to another. Eugenics would be another name for it. I blame god for slavery.
Unless you are a member of the KKK, I cannot think of a single person who would use evolutionary theory as a means to justify racial descrimination or to justify a "notion that one race is in any way superior to another." People who claim these things always use the Bible and the word of God to back up their blindly-made, hatefull assertions.
In fact, evolution shows us that one race isn't all that different from another. I know white/black seems a big difference on the outside, but when you rip it all away and look at the genetics underneath, it is really just the same old same old sequence of TGCA...
I would like to point out, however, that the events you postulate have yet to occur.
You'd be surprised.
Yes, I most certainly would!
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by limbosis, posted 01-16-2007 12:58 PM limbosis has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 120 (377466)
01-16-2007 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by limbosis
01-16-2007 12:58 PM


Re: Oh? Is that the case, eh?
quote:
But, I can tell you that's just what a theory is, a guess, an elaborated hypothesis. There may be various levels of supporting data. Yet, fundamentally, there's no distinction.
So...would you say that the Germ theory of Disease, the atomic Theory of Matter, and the theory of a Heliocentric Solar system are simply "guesses"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by limbosis, posted 01-16-2007 12:58 PM limbosis has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 21 of 120 (377496)
01-17-2007 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tusko
01-16-2007 10:51 AM


the population dilemma
Tusko wrote: When I first read this I though you were raising the question of why an all-powerful creator would secrete (apparently false) evidence of evolution all around us.
At some point the leader(s) of any nation, continent, planet surface, planet, etc. must begin to consider the population dilemma.
To be honest, I've never played out the possible scenarios for this earth. I've never been so bold as to assume I had the right to decide upon a population control policy for anyone else. Someone must, though, at some point.
There are many, many ways to control a given population. Some are obvious. Some are not so obvious. Some would appear to be fair, on the surface. Some are altogether insidious. And, I imagine some would be so unthinkable, that they would be kept from our awareness at any cost...every cost.
Do you think it is a coincidence the idea of eugenics came about shortly after the inception of the TOEvo? Is there any relation to the American Civil War? This is what's known as circumstantial evidence. And, people have been hanged for much less.
Can you think of any way to effectively control population? Do you have any method in mind that may be applied to the eventual priority. Think. There are some stark analogs between certain biblical traditions and what could easily be considered the most significant struggle that mankind has ever faced, racism. Could the ones behind the bible be the same ones behind the TOEvo? Is it possible?
After all, the concept of science is more or less nominal. What is science? Science is a collection of publications that has been steered by a select few publishers, and directed toward specific conclusions. We see it everywhere. It is ubiquitous. Does this sound familiar? Does it sound like some other aspect of human "culture"? Do we really know where some of it originates? Truthfully? Or, do we just go by what we read in the books that get handed to us?
Some of the folks on these forums seem to be confusing theories with scientific laws (like gravity, motion, etc.) I don't blame them, though. If you open up almost any biology book, you will see evolution referred as a theory exactly once. Then, for the rest of the book, evolution is written about as if it were some natural law.
Do you see what I'm getting at?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tusko, posted 01-16-2007 10:51 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RickJB, posted 01-17-2007 6:40 AM limbosis has not replied
 Message 23 by Tusko, posted 01-17-2007 7:01 AM limbosis has replied
 Message 24 by Tusko, posted 01-17-2007 7:53 AM limbosis has replied
 Message 25 by nator, posted 01-17-2007 8:57 AM limbosis has not replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2007 3:25 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2007 3:37 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 30 by Wounded King, posted 01-17-2007 7:04 PM limbosis has replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 22 of 120 (377502)
01-17-2007 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by limbosis
01-17-2007 2:30 AM


Re: the population dilemma
Limbosis writes:
Some of the folks on these forums seem to be confusing theories with scientific laws (like gravity, motion, etc.) I don't blame them, though.
Wrong yet again! A law governs an individual action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. A theory of motion, for example, is governed by lots of separate laws.
It is you who is confused, but hey, I don't blame you....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 2:30 AM limbosis has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 23 of 120 (377503)
01-17-2007 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by limbosis
01-17-2007 2:30 AM


Re: the population dilemma
Do you see what I'm getting at?
It seems to me that you are making several claims. You claim, I think, that eugenics is a direct product of the theory of evolution. (You may also be making the wider claim that racism generally is a product of the TOE as well - I'm not sure.) You also claim that in education, TOE is treated as gospel, rather than as a theory.
To address the first point - if ideas can in some way be judged negatively if appropriated by racists, then I think Christianity (for instance) has a much longer charge sheet than the TOE. After all, the bible has been used to support slavery, something that most of us now find pretty abhorent.
You also claim that TOE is taught in a misleading way. I don't think it is - I think it is merely presented as the best scientific explanation of the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 2:30 AM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 7:06 PM Tusko has replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 24 of 120 (377505)
01-17-2007 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by limbosis
01-17-2007 2:30 AM


Re: the population dilemma
I didn't address what I saw as your main point when I initially read your post, so I will do so here.
You seem to believe that TOE is not descriptive but ultimately prescriptive - that is, that people might be justified in drawing moral or philosophical lessons from what we observe in nature. I totally reject this on two grounds. Firstly, why should we take any lead from what we observe in nature? At best we can observe enlightened altruism, but it is generally ruthless and uncaring. What kind of a basis is that for a society? Secondly, we face the difficulty that whenever we look at nature for answers as to how to order our society, we must interpret. Our interpretations are largely the product of our own beliefs, so while TOE might, to 19th century colonialists and industrialists, have seemed to offer support to their widely shared racist and classist views,we thoroughly reject their racist and classist beliefs and so have no interest in using the TOE to support them. TOE, like any other idea, can be appropriated to offer support for philosophical or social views. The TOE, like any other idea, in itself, can bear no responsibility of the views of those who chose to co-opt it in this way.
ABE: Perhaps it would make more sense if I put it like this: because evolution can be used to support contradictory moral and social beliefs (we could, for instance, use TOE to argue against our unenlightened 19th century friends that all men should be treated equal), then it cannot be said to have a specific moral colour.
So when you say that TOE supports eugenics, I totally disagree. It has been used by those who support eugenics as a justification however.
Does that distinction make sense?
Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.
Edited by Tusko, : ABE: bit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 2:30 AM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 6:37 PM Tusko has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 120 (377511)
01-17-2007 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by limbosis
01-17-2007 2:30 AM


Re: the population dilemma
quote:
What is science? Science is a collection of publications that has been steered by a select few publishers, and directed toward specific conclusions.
Actually, science is extremely competative and careers are made by overturning dominant paradigms.
You become famous in science for showing how lots of your predecessors and peers are wrong.
Since it's your peers who are reviewing your work in the professional journals, how is it possible that the above could happen if the results are always "steered" in some fashion, as you say?
You do realize that peer review and jounal editing is done by many different scientists in a given specialty, often for free or for nominal renumeration, don't you??
And what do you base your idea that there are a "select few publishers" in science on?
There are thousands and thousands of independently run professional science journals. The editors of these journals are scientists with relevant expertise, and many of them edit the jounals for free.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 2:30 AM limbosis has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 120 (377584)
01-17-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by limbosis
01-17-2007 2:30 AM


Re: the population dilemma
Some of the folks on these forums seem to be confusing theories with scientific laws ...
A theory is a collection of laws. For example, the theory of evolution consists of the laws of genetics and the law of natural selection. The theory of gravity consists of the laws of motion and the law of gravity. The theory of thermodynamics consists of the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law, et cetera.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 2:30 AM limbosis has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 120 (377586)
01-17-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by limbosis
01-17-2007 2:30 AM


Re: the population dilemma
Do you think it is a coincidence the idea of eugenics came about shortly after the inception of the TOEvo?
No, I think both of them were caused by people thinking about inherited characteristics. Every science attracts its cranks and crackpots. The eugenicists were a prime example.
---
We should also note that the eugenicists were only interested in microevolution, and that they did not, in general, believe in the theory of evolution as an explanation for speciation. To quote Hitler:
The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.
What he was interested in changing through eugenics was:
The various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.
In so far as creationists have a theory, creationist theory permits microevolution, and Hitler could draw as much support from Answers in Genesis (had it existed) as from the Origin of Species.
As to where Hitler actually got his inspiration from, I think we'll let him speak for himself:
My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 2:30 AM limbosis has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 28 of 120 (377646)
01-17-2007 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tusko
01-17-2007 7:01 AM


Re: the population dilemma
...if ideas can in some way be judged negatively if appropriated by racists, then I think Christianity (for instance) has a much longer charge sheet than the TOE. After all, the bible has been used to support slavery, something that most of us now find pretty abhorent.
I agree, most of us except those who take the bible as infallable. That's a lot of people. But, if you asked any of them to speak up and support the tradition of slavery because it's in the bible, they would all be to cowardly to come forward.
You also claim that TOE is taught in a misleading way. I don't think it is - I think it is merely presented as the best scientific explanation of the evidence.
The evidence indicates a relationship between species. That's all. This isn't a thread for debating the TOEvo, but it would more aptly be called the theory of relativity (since that name is occupied by another useless theory).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tusko, posted 01-17-2007 7:01 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tusko, posted 01-17-2007 7:19 PM limbosis has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 29 of 120 (377637)
01-17-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tusko
01-17-2007 7:53 AM


Re: the population dilemma
You seem to believe that TOE is not descriptive but ultimately prescriptive - that is, that people might be justified in drawing moral or philosophical lessons from what we observe in nature. I totally reject this on two grounds. Firstly, why should we take any lead from what we observe in nature? At best we can observe enlightened altruism, but it is generally ruthless and uncaring. What kind of a basis is that for a society? Secondly, we face the difficulty that whenever we look at nature for answers as to how to order our society, we must interpret. Our interpretations are largely the product of our own beliefs, so while TOE might, to 19th century colonialists and industrialists, have seemed to offer support to their widely shared racist and classist views,we thoroughly reject their racist and classist beliefs and so have no interest in using the TOE to support them. TOE, like any other idea, can be appropriated to offer support for philosophical or social views. The TOE, like any other idea, in itself, can bear no responsibility of the views of those who chose to co-opt it in this way.
I believe that TOEvo was posed as descriptive, and done so with an ulterior motive. You might agree that there are many examples of ruthless behavior in society, as sanctioned by national governments. Not that this necessarily correlates to nature, but it couldn't said that this isn't the basis for industrialized society, a kind of dog-eat-dog mentality, if you will.
It's important for me to say that I don't assume anyone on this forum is racist or classist in any way. Whether some actually are is another story. And, even though the hope is that the vast majority of people on earth are not racist, it wouldn't preclude the idea that the powers-that-be strictly abide by an entirely racist indoctrination. There is certainly plenty of evidence for it. (If you insist, I can shed as much light on it as you need.)
So, I would also agree that scientific data, alone, could not be held responsible for any belief system. The issue becomes clearer when you realize that science itself appears to have been under a stewardship of affectation, all along. If you want to see some real science, look for the ideas that DON'T get widely publicized. (There are some pretty simple ways of doing that.) Then, make up your OWN mind, as opposed to allowing someone else to do it for you. There's nothing wrong with that. Wouldn't you say?
I'm suggesting some as-of-yet unsubstantiated claims against science, I know. I'm more or less prefacing my position, for now. If care to continue this line of reasoning, I will be happy to lay it out for you carefully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tusko, posted 01-17-2007 7:53 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 01-17-2007 7:22 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 33 by Tusko, posted 01-17-2007 7:37 PM limbosis has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 30 of 120 (377645)
01-17-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by limbosis
01-17-2007 2:30 AM


Re: the population dilemma
Do you think it is a coincidence the idea of eugenics came about shortly after the inception of the TOEvo?
Actually it should be pretty clear that all you are describing is Galton's coining of the term 'Eugenics' and his own approach to it. The concepts utilised by eugenics have been know and practiced well before the, comparatively, recent evolutionary theories of the 19th century were developed.
And, people have been hanged for much less.
Probably the wrong people.
If your best argument is a specious post hoc ergo propter hoc then you basically don't have an argument.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 2:30 AM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by limbosis, posted 01-18-2007 3:01 PM Wounded King has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024