What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Evolutionalary theory.

Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
I noticed in our evolution threads that some of those that are pro evolution, don't know what they are talking about. They have the attitude Science=good, without having a good idea of the science they are defending.

In particular, there is the problem of how evolution works. Many people here credit Darwin with the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics. This would upset Chuck because he spent the first third of Origin of Species explaining how this concept was wrong.

And others who are closer to correct jump on the concept of "Survival of the Fittest." Which also would upset Chuck, because it presumes evolution has a value judgment, which being a blind process, it does not care about. A better frame for the theory is "Survival of the best fit." Lions live in hot places because they fit best in hot places. Polar bears live in the arctic not because they are better than lions in any intrinsic manner, they just are better designed for the cold weather they live in.

Lots of really cool animals are extinct. Cockroaches and ants can survive anything and thrive. This does not mean they are the best, it just means they are best equipped.

Both of these scientific mistakes lead to dangerous conclusions. That we can alter the human animal closer to our hearts desire, either by changing the environment, somehow changing the way humans react to each other by fiat, or by getting rid of the 'unfit.'

Evolutionary theory has moved on a long way from Darwin's time. Much of what he believed and wrote has been proved off kilter or downright wrong. Even though his basic insight that large populations have the members not suited to the environment selected out still stands.

Evolution is a very useful tool for understanding the way things work. But in the wrong hands it can lead to bad results. It is better to drink deep of the perian spring, than to make assumption from shallow understanding.
 

JBeukema

Rookie
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
25,613
Reaction score
1,745
Points
0
Location
everywhere and nowhere
And others who are closer to correct jump on the concept of "Survival of the Fittest." Which also would upset Chuck, because it presumes evolution has a value judgment, which being a blind process, it does not care about.

Wrong.

Fitness is defined as the ability to successful replicate and pass along copies of an organism's or a traits self. It's not a judgement of anything. It's merely a simple matter of whether a given system reproduces/replicates more than another and whether a given trait spreads and becomes predominate.
 
OP
Baruch Menachem
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
I am going on more about what people assume from the term. A lot of the literature from the 30's and 40's made the assumption I was talking about. You are correct in your reasoning though. That does not mean other people are.
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
Good points. The problem for defenders of science who are not scientific-minded, such as myself, is that the opponents usually frame the argument in fairly fundamentalist terms. The word "Darwinist" is a clue. The other phrase is "evolution doesn't explain the causes of life". It's easy to get tangled up while you're trying to explain that science goes forward.

Lamarckism I think is the only "-ism" to be debunked pretty well and even then I think it would be wise to keep an open mind on it, just in case. Also I think that this discussion was happening before Darwin published "Origin", not sure of that.

Herbert Spencer has also to be dragged in here as well. And just for interest's sake, let's think about the political and social culture of Victorian Britain and the Empire and how it viewed (when it wasn't protesting on religious grounds) the views of Darwin and particularly Spencer.

But how the bloody hell do you convince someone that science has moved a long, long way since Darwin published?
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
They just need to make it sould like its the ideas of one single man to more easily attempt to discredit the sceince.
 

Amanda

Calm as a Hindu cow
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
4,426
Reaction score
1,011
Points
48
I noticed in our evolution threads that some of those that are pro evolution, don't know what they are talking about. They have the attitude Science=good, without having a good idea of the science they are defending.

In particular, there is the problem of how evolution works. Many people here credit Darwin with the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics. This would upset Chuck because he spent the first third of Origin of Species explaining how this concept was wrong.

And others who are closer to correct jump on the concept of "Survival of the Fittest." Which also would upset Chuck, because it presumes evolution has a value judgment, which being a blind process, it does not care about. A better frame for the theory is "Survival of the best fit." Lions live in hot places because they fit best in hot places. Polar bears live in the arctic not because they are better than lions in any intrinsic manner, they just are better designed for the cold weather they live in.

Lots of really cool animals are extinct. Cockroaches and ants can survive anything and thrive. This does not mean they are the best, it just means they are best equipped.

Both of these scientific mistakes lead to dangerous conclusions. That we can alter the human animal closer to our hearts desire, either by changing the environment, somehow changing the way humans react to each other by fiat, or by getting rid of the 'unfit.'

Evolutionary theory has moved on a long way from Darwin's time. Much of what he believed and wrote has been proved off kilter or downright wrong. Even though his basic insight that large populations have the members not suited to the environment selected out still stands.

Evolution is a very useful tool for understanding the way things work. But in the wrong hands it can lead to bad results. It is better to drink deep of the perian spring, than to make assumption from shallow understanding.

Good post.

I've seen a lot of misconceptions about evolution being tossed around here lately.
 
R

rdean

Guest
I noticed in our evolution threads that some of those that are pro evolution, don't know what they are talking about. They have the attitude Science=good, without having a good idea of the science they are defending.

In particular, there is the problem of how evolution works. Many people here credit Darwin with the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics. This would upset Chuck because he spent the first third of Origin of Species explaining how this concept was wrong.

And others who are closer to correct jump on the concept of "Survival of the Fittest." Which also would upset Chuck, because it presumes evolution has a value judgment, which being a blind process, it does not care about. A better frame for the theory is "Survival of the best fit." Lions live in hot places because they fit best in hot places. Polar bears live in the arctic not because they are better than lions in any intrinsic manner, they just are better designed for the cold weather they live in.
Lots of really cool animals are extinct. Cockroaches and ants can survive anything and thrive. This does not mean they are the best, it just means they are best equipped.

Both of these scientific mistakes lead to dangerous conclusions. That we can alter the human animal closer to our hearts desire, either by changing the environment, somehow changing the way humans react to each other by fiat, or by getting rid of the 'unfit.'

Evolutionary theory has moved on a long way from Darwin's time. Much of what he believed and wrote has been proved off kilter or downright wrong. Even though his basic insight that large populations have the members not suited to the environment selected out still stands.

Evolution is a very useful tool for understanding the way things work. But in the wrong hands it can lead to bad results. It is better to drink deep of the perian spring, than to make assumption from shallow understanding.

You are one of the problems. Someone who has zero idea what they are talking about.

As I pointed out in the different thread, super computers of today can do, in just a couple of hours, what it would have taken a super computer 90 years to do from just 20 years ago.

The knowledge about computer processors extends to the molecular level, something undreamed of 30 years ago.

The point?

Knowledge in science is across the board. That same "leap" in knowledge that is demonstrated by computers exists in all branches. This isn't 1980. Cretinous right wingers are still fighting a fight that has left them in the dust they claim Adam was made out of. The "knowledge" part of that fight is over and the white wing has lost.

They can continue this ridiculous insistence that we were put here by "occult" forces rooted in magical beliefs. It's their own kids they are damaging. My kids know better. Since early childhood, they have been exposed to "reality".

Don't attempt to claim knowledge of science you obviously know nothing about.

Does this sound like intelligent discourse from someone well versed in the science of evolution?:

"Lions live in hot places because they fit best in hot places. Polar bears live in the arctic not because they are better than lions in any intrinsic manner, they just are better designed for the cold weather they live in."
 
R

rdean

Guest
Good points. The problem for defenders of science who are not scientific-minded, such as myself, is that the opponents usually frame the argument in fairly fundamentalist terms. The word "Darwinist" is a clue. The other phrase is "evolution doesn't explain the causes of life". It's easy to get tangled up while you're trying to explain that science goes forward.

Lamarckism I think is the only "-ism" to be debunked pretty well and even then I think it would be wise to keep an open mind on it, just in case. Also I think that this discussion was happening before Darwin published "Origin", not sure of that.

Herbert Spencer has also to be dragged in here as well. And just for interest's sake, let's think about the political and social culture of Victorian Britain and the Empire and how it viewed (when it wasn't protesting on religious grounds) the views of Darwin and particularly Spencer.

But how the bloody hell do you convince someone that science has moved a long, long way since Darwin published?

You can't. That fight is so over. Like I said in my previous post, this isn't 1980 or even 1880. The only thing we can hope to do is limit the damage their incurious minds cost this country because they "delegitimize" science. Science base weaponry will keep us a whole lot safer than "praying and mumbo jumbo".
 
OP
Baruch Menachem
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
Are you saying bad assumptions using defective information based on disgraced theories are a good thing?

Lots of folks say "this is science." But what they speak of is just another form of faith. Scientific socialism is still moonshine. Christian Science is still belief in weak minds over hard matter.

I really don't understand your objection, because you didn't explain it correctly.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
I am going on more about what people assume from the term. A lot of the literature from the 30's and 40's made the assumption I was talking about. You are correct in your reasoning though. That does not mean other people are.

you read literature of the 30's and 40's and you refute their basic premises? wow! you rock.

who is your audience?
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
I noticed in our evolution threads that some of those that are pro evolution, don't know what they are talking about. They have the attitude Science=good, without having a good idea of the science they are defending.

In particular, there is the problem of how evolution works. Many people here credit Darwin with the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics. This would upset Chuck because he spent the first third of Origin of Species explaining how this concept was wrong.

And others who are closer to correct jump on the concept of "Survival of the Fittest." Which also would upset Chuck, because it presumes evolution has a value judgment, which being a blind process, it does not care about. A better frame for the theory is "Survival of the best fit." Lions live in hot places because they fit best in hot places. Polar bears live in the arctic not because they are better than lions in any intrinsic manner, they just are better designed for the cold weather they live in.

Lots of really cool animals are extinct. Cockroaches and ants can survive anything and thrive. This does not mean they are the best, it just means they are best equipped.

Both of these scientific mistakes lead to dangerous conclusions. That we can alter the human animal closer to our hearts desire, either by changing the environment, somehow changing the way humans react to each other by fiat, or by getting rid of the 'unfit.'

Evolutionary theory has moved on a long way from Darwin's time. Much of what he believed and wrote has been proved off kilter or downright wrong. Even though his basic insight that large populations have the members not suited to the environment selected out still stands.

Evolution is a very useful tool for understanding the way things work. But in the wrong hands it can lead to bad results. It is better to drink deep of the perian spring, than to make assumption from shallow understanding.

you've noticed how fucking stupid many people are. :clap2:


this is a new revelation?
 

eagleseven

Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
1,370
Points
48
Location
OH
But how the bloody hell do you convince someone that science has moved a long, long way since Darwin published?
It is self-evident. Anyone who denies this is beyond reason.

Fundies pretend that science hasn't advanced since 1850, despite the fact that they're using computers and taking antibiotics...
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
But how the bloody hell do you convince someone that science has moved a long, long way since Darwin published?
It is self-evident. Anyone who denies this is beyond reason.

Fundies pretend that science hasn't advanced since 1850, despite the fact that they're using computers and taking antibiotics...

even Christian Scientists?


:lol:


how friggin funny is that name?
 

Dr Gregg

Rookie
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
201
Points
0
I noticed in our evolution threads that some of those that are pro evolution, don't know what they are talking about. They have the attitude Science=good, without having a good idea of the science they are defending.

In particular, there is the problem of how evolution works. Many people here credit Darwin with the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics. This would upset Chuck because he spent the first third of Origin of Species explaining how this concept was wrong.

And others who are closer to correct jump on the concept of "Survival of the Fittest." Which also would upset Chuck, because it presumes evolution has a value judgment, which being a blind process, it does not care about. A better frame for the theory is "Survival of the best fit." Lions live in hot places because they fit best in hot places. Polar bears live in the arctic not because they are better than lions in any intrinsic manner, they just are better designed for the cold weather they live in.

Lots of really cool animals are extinct. Cockroaches and ants can survive anything and thrive. This does not mean they are the best, it just means they are best equipped.

Both of these scientific mistakes lead to dangerous conclusions. That we can alter the human animal closer to our hearts desire, either by changing the environment, somehow changing the way humans react to each other by fiat, or by getting rid of the 'unfit.'

Evolutionary theory has moved on a long way from Darwin's time. Much of what he believed and wrote has been proved off kilter or downright wrong. Even though his basic insight that large populations have the members not suited to the environment selected out still stands.

Evolution is a very useful tool for understanding the way things work. But in the wrong hands it can lead to bad results. It is better to drink deep of the perian spring, than to make assumption from shallow understanding.

It's the anti-evolution delusional people that just don't want to accept that they are animals and their religion is wrong that don't know what they are talking about regarding Evolution. It's those people that claim Darwin is the end all, be all of evolution, when in fact all the research that has come after Darwin has done nothing but further strengthen and support the theory, even the amazing molecular biology and genome breakthroughs of the past 20 years. All fully supporting evolution
 

Dr Gregg

Rookie
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
201
Points
0
And another thing, to fully appreciate and understand evolution, you need higher education on the matter. It's complex and when you understand chemistry, physics, biology, genetics, ecology, etc it all fits perfectly. Most people are just ignorant of science at a higher level and can't fully appreciate it.

There are entire college course, requiring prerequisites in other basic sciences, that teach evolution. So no wonder many people don't fully understand it unless they have that science education
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,437
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
And another thing, to fully appreciate and understand evolution, you need higher education on the matter. It's complex and when you understand chemistry, physics, biology, genetics, ecology, etc it all fits perfectly. Most people are just ignorant of science at a higher level and can't fully appreciate it.

There are entire college course, requiring prerequisites in other basic sciences, that teach evolution. So no wonder many people don't fully understand it unless they have that science education

That even includes Geology. For the very makeup of our atmosphere is the result of life and evolution. And there are many types of rocks that are the result of life.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
And another thing, to fully appreciate and understand evolution, you need higher education on the matter. It's complex and when you understand chemistry, physics, biology, genetics, ecology, etc it all fits perfectly. Most people are just ignorant of science at a higher level and can't fully appreciate it.

There are entire college course, requiring prerequisites in other basic sciences, that teach evolution. So no wonder many people don't fully understand it unless they have that science education

one doesn't need an education in science or a degree to understand evolution. one needs critical thinking skills to understand that creation science is all about creation and nothing about science.
 
OP
Baruch Menachem
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
From the time of Linneaus, evolution has been pretty much an obvious conclusion.

The Religious objection is to inevitable conclusion of that reality. If we are a critter like any other, where is the special relation we have with the creator? If you deny a postulate, then you can deny the conclusion.

And if you run with a half baked idea of what you are studying, then what of the consequences? Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, even today in North Korea, and in Stalin's Russia, there was an open desire to cull the herd of undesirables to make for a new, better man.

It is best to leave man out of the equation for a while, as if we put man in the equation, the consequences of breeding for improvement are to horrible to contemplate.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
From the time of Linneaus, evolution has been pretty much an obvious conclusion.

The Religious objection is to inevitable conclusion of that reality. If we are a critter like any other, where is the special relation we have with the creator? If you deny a postulate, then you can deny the conclusion.

And if you run with a half baked idea of what you are studying, then what of the consequences? Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, even today in North Korea, and in Stalin's Russia, there was an open desire to cull the herd of undesirables to make for a new, better man.

It is best to leave man out of the equation for a while, as if we put man in the equation, the consequences of breeding for improvement are to horrible to contemplate.

There is no creator except as a human construct. The relationship is one of self delusion. Fear based and comforting. Symbols and myths belong to the area of consciousness that defines us as individuals.
 

Big Black Dog

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
23,406
Reaction score
8,012
Points
890
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I was created by God in His image. My wife, on the other hand, must have evolved from monkeys!
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top