Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   How did food evolve?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 61 of 86 (405141)
06-11-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by WS-JW
06-11-2007 1:10 PM


An overview of evolutionary theory would be Talk.Origin's "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html.
The Talk.Origin Archive site has a multitude of articles, mostly examining creationist claims and explaining what's wrong with them, but also informative articles on aspects of evolution and of age-of-the-earth (a 6,000-to-10,000-year-old earth being an essential part of young-earth creationism, the kind that had most commonly been promoted before they went stealth by using "intelligent design"). And, yes, they also examine and discuss "intelligent design". Their newsgroup, talk.origins, is very active (but don't go bursting in there; comparitively speaking we've been coddling you immensely) and the Archive posts the newsgroup's Post of the Month. And they publish the feedback emails that they receive along with their responses.
All in all, a very informative and valuable source of information.
PS
BTW, many of the contributors to talk.origins are Christians and believers in a divine Creator. Creationism tries to paint all "evolutionists" as atheists, but that is clearly a false claim.
In case you haven't been told this yet, it is not at all a case of evolution vs God, nor even of evolution vs religion. Science does not say anything about the supernatural except that science cannot deal with the supernatural and therefore cannot include supernaturalistic explanations as a part of science. Science is not denying the possibility that the supernatural could exist, but rather denying that the supernatural can be used in science.
This is called "methodological materialism", which is quite different from "philosophical materialism" which would claim that the supernatural does not exist. Please note that "intelligent design" falsely claims that science is based on philosophical materialism.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by WS-JW, posted 06-11-2007 1:10 PM WS-JW has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 62 of 86 (405170)
06-11-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
06-11-2007 1:28 PM


The book is just an extended uninformed rant.
In what way, uninformed? I've got his book on my coffee table right now and speaking as a former Christian (who was one for years and is familiar with theology at all levels) I didn't encounter a single thing I thought Dawkins was misinformed or uninformed about. You don't have to be a tailor to see that the emperor has no clothes. You don't have to have memorized every magic item in the Dungeon Master's Guide to know that Dungeons and Dragons is just a game.
It's certainly true that he didn't interview literally every believer about their belief in God, but that hardly seems necessary. Is that why you're calling him ignorant? Because he didn't have a response for literally every variation of theist woo?
I'll tell you what, though; for all Dawkins' book is criticized for being shoddy reasoning, I've not seen a single refutation that wasn't based entirely in disingenuity. For instance, most recently, Alistair McGrath's book. Less than a third the length of Dawkins' book, it largely accomplishes that feat of economy by grappling with strawmen. If God exists, why isn't it possible to defend that position from atheists without being disingenuous? If atheist arguments are so impotent, why is it that they're only every refuted as strawmen?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 06-11-2007 1:28 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 63 of 86 (405174)
06-11-2007 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
06-11-2007 1:28 PM


Percy writes:
Perhaps someone can recommend something that's balanced and not too long or detailed.
For a long time now, I have been convinced that there really is no good book to recommend to creationists. The ones that present real evidence are just too (pardon the pun) complex. The ones that are easier to absorb have too much potential to give false impressions.
This is why I think Dawkins has decided to say and write what he says and writes. I think he realizes that the evidence necessary to make a convincing case for the benefits of science are just too academically inclined for ordinary folks to understand. On the other hand, if he makes it too simple, the evidence themselves are misrepresented. What is one to do but pulls out one's hair, shakes the creationist, and says "what's wrong with you?"
In other words, I think he's just suffering from what many of us suffer from time to time: frustration.
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins: an absolutely horrible book.
You really think so? A lot of what he says in that book are alligned with many of the conventional views of supersitions... or at least that's how I perceived it. Then again, I know zip about psychology anyway.


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 06-11-2007 1:28 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-12-2007 2:42 PM Taz has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 64 of 86 (405177)
06-11-2007 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by WS-JW
06-11-2007 1:10 PM


Looking at things from a Christian Perspective
you might want to study the Catechism of Creation.
It is a look at the Creation Stories from a purely Christian Perspective.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by WS-JW, posted 06-11-2007 1:10 PM WS-JW has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 65 of 86 (405184)
06-11-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
06-11-2007 1:28 PM


I wholeheartedly reccomend Misquoting Jesus: The story of who changed the Bible and why.
It doesn't specifically address Creationism, but rather it's parent: Biblical literalism. It's written by a former fundamentalist Christian, who was driven by his faith to study the Bible and its history in-depth. Since Creationism stands solely upon the idea that the Bible is God's infallible Word, this book is invaluable in understanding why many don't accept it as such - both within the faith and without. It's short, well written, has many specific examples, and cheap.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 06-11-2007 1:28 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 66 of 86 (405195)
06-11-2007 9:12 PM


General Response about The God Delusion
I didn't want to get into a discussion about Dawkins' book. As I said, it's just my personal opinion. It's not about food evolution, anyway, nor even a cookbook!
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2007 9:18 PM Percy has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 86 (405199)
06-11-2007 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
06-11-2007 9:12 PM


Re: General Response about The God Delusion
I didn't want to get into a discussion about Dawkins' book.
Don't we have a God Delusion thread? I thought we did.
And that's not getting into the fact that I was pretty sure it was you a while back who called shenanigans on voicing contentious opinions and then demanding that they not be discussed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 06-11-2007 9:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 06-11-2007 10:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 68 of 86 (405214)
06-11-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
06-11-2007 9:18 PM


Re: General Response about The God Delusion
I don't think a digression into The God Delusion would be appropriate for a thread about the evolution of food, but more importantly, I think you've lost track of how it was introduced into the discussion. WS-JW asked if people thought The God Delusion was "a good read or not so good," and I gave him my opinion and told him why. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean we can hijack this thread into a discussion of the book. If you think it's a book he should read then go ahead and tell him what you liked about it, though to me it seems a sure why to alienate a sincere Christian. Heck, I'm not even a Christian and I was alienated. Even friends and colleagues of Dawkins have lamented the book.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2007 9:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2007 11:05 PM Percy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 86 (405223)
06-11-2007 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Percy
06-11-2007 10:09 PM


Re: General Response about The God Delusion
Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean we can hijack this thread into a discussion of the book.
I don't want to hijack this thread into anything.
A) It was just some friendly ribbing.
B) I think it'd be an interesting avenue of discussion, sometime.
That is all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 06-11-2007 10:09 PM Percy has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 70 of 86 (405227)
06-11-2007 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by nator
06-05-2007 10:07 PM


Specifically, I have a mutation in my MSX1 gene, such that my lower wisdom teeth never developed.
Lucky you. I had to have all four of mine removed. It wasn`t fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by nator, posted 06-05-2007 10:07 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 06-12-2007 9:38 AM fallacycop has not replied

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


Message 71 of 86 (405325)
06-12-2007 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by fallacycop
06-11-2007 11:13 PM


Oh yes, I do consider myself lucky that I have missing wisdom teeth!
OTOH, I was also born with a rather severe allergy to bee stings, discovered in my 6th year when I was stung by a honey bee and was rushed to the emergency room after going into anaphylactic shock. I had to get an allergy shot a week for a whole year when I was about 7. That's a lot of shots! I still don't have normal reactions to bee stings to this day, but they are not life-threatening anymore.
It's too bad that Buzsaw wasn't around to give me herbs to save my life back then, eh? I'm sure that his dietary reccomendations would have been just as effective as the shots of adrenaline they gave me at keeping my heart going.
Stupid conventional medicine, giving me all those allergy shots to reduce my body's overreaction to bee venom so my liklihood of dying from anaphylactic shock is much less.(grumble, grumble...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by fallacycop, posted 06-11-2007 11:13 PM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 06-12-2007 10:02 AM nator has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 72 of 86 (405329)
06-12-2007 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
06-12-2007 9:38 AM


Schraf writes:
OTOH, I was also born with a rather severe allergy to bee stings, discovered in my 6th year when I was stung by a honey bee and was rushed to the emergency room after going into anaphylactic shock. I had to get an allergy shot a week for a whole year when I was about 7. That's a lot of shots! I still don't have normal reactions to bee stings to this day, but they are not life-threatening anymore.
I've been envying you your missing wisdom teeth all these years, but now the tally evens up! My sister is allergic to bee stings, I know how bad that can be. I, on the other hand, am fairly insensitive to bee and wasp stings, they're like mosquito bites are to most other people. And my mosquito bites disappear within 15 or 20 minutes. I have no idea if there's a genetic basis to this, but I would suspect so. I don't know if it's related, but acetaminophen (Tylenol) has no effect on me, either, though I don't think I ever went beyond a double-dose.
To top if all off, there's some pheromone that a fair percentage of humans give off that insects use to detect their presence, and lucky me, I'm apparently not one of them! If I'm the only person around then insects have no trouble finding me, but when I'm in a group I'm left pretty much alone.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 06-12-2007 9:38 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2007 7:28 PM Percy has replied
 Message 77 by Taz, posted 06-12-2007 8:23 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 81 by Doddy, posted 06-23-2007 8:10 AM Percy has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 73 of 86 (405331)
06-12-2007 10:10 AM


Those of us that had six wisdom teeth, all of which had to be removed, regard folks like Nator with some bit of envy.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 86 (405386)
06-12-2007 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Taz
06-11-2007 7:34 PM


For a long time now, I have been convinced that there really is no good book to recommend to creationists. The ones that present real evidence are just too (pardon the pun) complex.
Well, here we have a problem.
Evolution is cool because it explains nature, which would otherwise be just a magpie's nest of random information. In a saner world, people who weren't interested in nature wouldn't be interested in evolution either.
You can't teach evolutionary biology without the biology. "There is no royal road," as the man said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Taz, posted 06-11-2007 7:34 PM Taz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 86 (405415)
06-12-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Percy
06-12-2007 10:02 AM


I, on the other hand, am fairly insensitive to bee and wasp stings, they're like mosquito bites are to most other people. And my mosquito bites disappear within 15 or 20 minutes. I have no idea if there's a genetic basis to this, but I would suspect so. I don't know if it's related, but acetaminophen (Tylenol) has no effect on me, either, though I don't think I ever went beyond a double-dose.
That's quite a power. Somebody get Charles Xavier on the phone. What color is your spandex going to be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 06-12-2007 10:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 06-12-2007 8:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024