The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation

[Wuwei]

Debating using a personal experience rather than overall fact, is a fallacy.
Virtually all human achievements/advancements in life were made by those in the top 10% of IQers, if not 2%
Being 'a leader of a country' doesn't mean being a good one.
You could have Kennedy who put us on the moon and drove subsequent progress, or a Trump who is really a stone age con man.

Nevertheless science/scientists (the smart) go on finding ie, VACCINES (and new ways to make them) which saved Tens of millions in the last year alone. Those are the smart/smartest doing mRNA work.

Someone else mentions what would happen if Chixilub hit today and that we'd have a year's warning.
Why is that?
Is it Galileo or anyone from, ie, the sub-Saharan Continent, who at that time were living in huts, and would probably still be if unmolested by by other cultures.
Is it the Chinese who've kept astronomical records, or equatorial hunter gatherers who live day to day without invention or need to plan for the future (like Winters/food storage and shelters).

Half of sub-Saharan Africa would have been wiped out by AIDS or Ebola were it not for Western medicine and IQ of the top 10% of them who are able to innovate such treatments/cures.

Again, virtually all of our progress has been the result of the top 10%, if not 2% of IQers.

Debating with personal experience is not a fallacy, but a rhetorical devise to make an informal point clear. Do you want to discount wisdom and determination as being a worthwhile trait for survival?

The rest of your post largely focusses on keeping individuals from dying. Not on keeping the species evolving or not going extinct.

When the next devastating calamity hits, I think militia type survival groups are the ones who will keep the species from dying. Street smarts will be more important than financial smarts

.

 

[abu afak]

Debating with personal experience is not a fallacy, but a rhetorical devise to make an informal point clear. Do you want to discount wisdom and determination as being a worthwhile trait for survival?

The rest of your post largely focusses on keeping individuals from dying. Not on keeping the species evolving or not going extinct.

When the next devastating calamity hits, I think militia type survival groups are the ones who will keep the species from dying. Street smarts will be more important than financial smarts

.

​

​

Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

anecdotal​

​

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.​

It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.​

`

 

[Wuwei]

​

​

Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

anecdotal​

​

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.​

It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.​

`

Yes I know the fallacy, but you misunderstood.
It should have been clear that I was making an informal point and not trying to make

a sound argument or compelling evidence​

as you want to put it in bold face. Jeez you are in a sour mood.

You seem to want to challenge my style and avoid the whole point of my post. If you want to continue that way, I'm not interested.

.

 

[alang1216]

I think the major problem is the speed at which the climate changes. If it's slow enough, the generations will have time to gradually reduce birth rate, relocate farming areas, and relocate habitable land.

Long term planning? Doesn't sound like the USA.

 

[abu afak]

Yes I know the fallacy, but you misunderstood.
It should have been clear that I was making an informal point and not trying to make

a sound argument or compelling evidence​

as you want to put it in bold face. Jeez you are in a sour mood.

You seem to want to challenge my style and avoid the whole point of my post. If you want to continue that way, I'm not interested.

.

It was in bold face at the website.
I merely copied it/did not code the bolding!
ooops 2.

I never avoid the meat of post.
I directly answered you
The more abstract 'Wisdom' is a refined product of the raw smart (or dumb) and is an intentional Deflection here.
The Wisdom of Archie Bunker is useless.
The extreme smart of Von Braun, Oppenheimer, or Einstein is what changes the world.

`

 

[Wuwei]

Long term planning? Doesn't sound like the USA.

You got that right.

 

[alang1216]

And what determines culture?
The Lottery, or being smart and valuing knowledge in the first place.
'Out of Africa' evolutionarily required a different kind of fitness: brains to store food and make shelter and clothing for 'winters.'
Then eventually agriculture to produce food in abundance to store.
Resulting in free time, trade, weights and measures, etc, etc. Jobs (merchants, scholars, bankers) where brains, not spear accuracy and foot speed counted.

Culture is based on history and geography.

You have an odd view of history. Even today our military is a major part of our society. Maybe less than in the past but still important to our culture.

 

[abu afak]

Culture is based on history and geography.

You have an odd view of history. Even today our military is a major part of our society. Maybe less than in the past but still important to our culture.

Culture doesn't survive if it's not smart enough to adapt.
Many have failed and many are doing poorly now.
IQ enables adaptation.
Many groups no doubt failed heading North out of Africa, the smarter ones figured out how to cope with Winter etc.
IQ in general goes North as one heads in that direction from the equator.
They had to deal with increasing problems.
Welcome to Evo 101.
`

 

[james bond]

The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation

This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?

By the simple brilliance of recognizing "survivorship bias". Survivorship bias causes us to miss the forest for the trees.

My favorite illustration of this -- for its simplicity -- is Abraham Wald's (who coined the term "survivorship") analysis of how best to armor our bombers during WW II. He was presented with the following information, which shows where returning bombers were hit by enemy strikes:

View attachment 548978
Without recognizing survivorship bias, one might think that the (limited resource, have to conserve weight) armor should be increased in the spots where the bullet holes are concentrated. This would seem to be where most bullet strikes occur, per the data. So more armor should be spent in those places, right?

No. One would better spend the armor on the places where returning planes show fewer strikes. Why? Because the bombers that were hit in those areas did not make it back. They splashed.

Darwin's revelation of natural selection owes itself to the same turn of thought. The other models that are not observed? They died off, and the more successful models propagated instead. That being the case, selection bias would greatly influence what we observe today.

Darwin's answer to the cause of that bias was the brilliant idea of natural selection.

Love the analogy, but Darwin stole natural selection from God. God created natural selection to protect the species. It means God is science and belongs there.

 

[abu afak]

Love the analogy, but Darwin stole natural selection from God. God created natural selection to protect the species. It means God is science and belongs there.

You have NO business here.
You are a Proselytizing ***hole with no factual/Scientific basis for your Sunday School idiotic pronouncements.
You are a brainwashed god-cult lunatic who needs to be debriefed/treated.
`

 

[Wuwei]

Love the analogy, but Darwin stole natural selection from God. God created natural selection to protect the species. It means God is science and belongs there.

Please do not troll this thread. We heard everything you have to say hundreds of times.

 

[Wuwei]

Culture is based on history and geography.

You have an odd view of history. Even today our military is a major part of our society. Maybe less than in the past but still important to our culture.

Does America even have a single culture anymore. We have at least two broad cultures - right and left. They are diametrically opposite on many issues.

I agree, the military is a strong part of our culture. Military spending is almost 3 times that of China, the next leading contender.

 

[james bond]

Please do not troll this thread. We heard everything you have to say hundreds of times.

No, you haven't. It was Charles Lyell and James Hutton, two atheists, who conspired to go against the domination of science by creationists by making up uniformitarianism and that which led to evolution. Both based on atheism, but you treat that as non-religion.

"At a recent AiG event in Scotland, I came across two men whose beliefs had a lasting impact on the church and the culture for very different reasons.

Siccar Point, on the east coast of Scotland, is famous in the history of the debate over the age of the Earth. It is this rocky headland that James Hutton (1726–1797), deist and often hailed as “the founding father of geology,” considered to be proof of his uniformitarian ideas of geological development. Consequently, his beliefs significantly undermined the biblical account of Creation and the Flood. Part of the sign at Siccar Point reads,

"The rocks at Siccar Point were the defining proof for his revolutionary Theory of the Earth. Most people at this time thought the world no older than a few thousand years. Hutton realised that earth processes are cyclical and that geological time is virtually unlimited . . . Hutton’s theory released science and philosophy from limitations of the biblical age of the earth (6000 years old). Though bitterly disputed at the time, it is now accepted as a fundamental of science.

Hutton’s views gave rise to the philosophy of uniformitarianism, which is the belief that the present is the key to the past. This would later be popularized by influential lawyer-geologist Charles Lyell in his three-volume work Principles of Geology (1830–1833), the first volume of which greatly influenced Charles Darwin during his famous five-year voyage around the world (1831–1836). Uniformitarianism has nothing to do with observation or the evidence but is accepted in order to avoid interpreting the evidence in light of the catastrophic processes implied by the global Flood described in Genesis 6–8. However, it is biblical revelation, and not observations in the present, that is the key to understanding the past (2 Peter 3:3–6).

Unfortunately, Hutton’s ideas played a vital role in the church abandoning its belief in the biblical account of Creation and the Flood, which had disastrous effects on the culture."

Scotland and Two Men Who Changed the Church and the Culture

At a recent AiG event in Scotland, I came across two men whose beliefs had a lasting impact on the church and the culture for very different reasons.

answersingenesis.org

Hutton's ideas led to what he taught Charles Darwin and Darwinism. Darwin used natural selection which he stole from the church and ran with it to con you into evolution today. You and I are on different sides of this natural selection attributed to Darwin or God.

What gets me is my side was one with it first and now you ignore the credits and use it to leave God by the wayside. Natural selection is his creation and not the lie of evolution.

I don't doubt what you, the atheists, and others state in this thread (even gave credit to the OP), but natural selection doesn't mean evolution. It isn't what led to development of all life forms today. Natural selection redistributes or reduces pre-existing genetic information and mutations corrupt that information.

Natural selection is what God created to ensure survival of the fittest no matter what Darwin claimed.

 

[Hollie]

Love the analogy, but Darwin stole natural selection from God. God created natural selection to protect the species. It means God is science and belongs there.

It means you need to keep your bible thumping out of a science related thread.

 

[Hollie]

No, you haven't. It was Charles Lyell and James Hutton, two atheists, who conspired to go against the domination of science by creationists by making up uniformitarianism and that which led to evolution. Both based on atheism, but you treat that as non-religion.

"At a recent AiG event in Scotland, I came across two men whose beliefs had a lasting impact on the church and the culture for very different reasons.

Siccar Point, on the east coast of Scotland, is famous in the history of the debate over the age of the Earth. It is this rocky headland that James Hutton (1726–1797), deist and often hailed as “the founding father of geology,” considered to be proof of his uniformitarian ideas of geological development. Consequently, his beliefs significantly undermined the biblical account of Creation and the Flood. Part of the sign at Siccar Point reads,

"The rocks at Siccar Point were the defining proof for his revolutionary Theory of the Earth. Most people at this time thought the world no older than a few thousand years. Hutton realised that earth processes are cyclical and that geological time is virtually unlimited . . . Hutton’s theory released science and philosophy from limitations of the biblical age of the earth (6000 years old). Though bitterly disputed at the time, it is now accepted as a fundamental of science.

Hutton’s views gave rise to the philosophy of uniformitarianism, which is the belief that the present is the key to the past. This would later be popularized by influential lawyer-geologist Charles Lyell in his three-volume work Principles of Geology (1830–1833), the first volume of which greatly influenced Charles Darwin during his famous five-year voyage around the world (1831–1836). Uniformitarianism has nothing to do with observation or the evidence but is accepted in order to avoid interpreting the evidence in light of the catastrophic processes implied by the global Flood described in Genesis 6–8. However, it is biblical revelation, and not observations in the present, that is the key to understanding the past (2 Peter 3:3–6).

Unfortunately, Hutton’s ideas played a vital role in the church abandoning its belief in the biblical account of Creation and the Flood, which had disastrous effects on the culture."

Scotland and Two Men Who Changed the Church and the Culture

At a recent AiG event in Scotland, I came across two men whose beliefs had a lasting impact on the church and the culture for very different reasons.

answersingenesis.org

Hutton's ideas led to what he taught Charles Darwin and Darwinism. Darwin used natural selection which he stole from the church and ran with it to con you into evolution today. You and I are on different sides of this natural selection attributed to Darwin or God.

What gets me is my side was one with it first and now you ignore the credits and use it to leave God by the wayside. Natural selection is his creation and not the lie of evolution.

I don't doubt what you, the atheists, and others state in this thread (even gave credit to the OP), but natural selection doesn't mean evolution. It isn't what led to development of all life forms today. Natural selection redistributes or reduces pre-existing genetic information and mutations corrupt that information.

Natural selection is what God created to ensure survival of the fittest no matter what Darwin claimed.

Tirades that include long cut and paste walls of text from religious extremists don't belong in a science related thread.

 

[Wuwei]

No, you haven't. It was Charles Lyell and James Hutton, two atheists, who conspired to go against the domination of science by creationists by making up uniformitarianism and that which led to evolution. Both based on atheism, but you treat that as non-religion.

"At a recent AiG event in Scotland, I came across two men whose beliefs had a lasting impact on the church and the culture for very different reasons.

Siccar Point, on the east coast of Scotland, is famous in the history of the debate over the age of the Earth. It is this rocky headland that James Hutton (1726–1797), deist and often hailed as “the founding father of geology,” considered to be proof of his uniformitarian ideas of geological development. Consequently, his beliefs significantly undermined the biblical account of Creation and the Flood. Part of the sign at Siccar Point reads,

"The rocks at Siccar Point were the defining proof for his revolutionary Theory of the Earth. Most people at this time thought the world no older than a few thousand years. Hutton realised that earth processes are cyclical and that geological time is virtually unlimited . . . Hutton’s theory released science and philosophy from limitations of the biblical age of the earth (6000 years old). Though bitterly disputed at the time, it is now accepted as a fundamental of science.

Hutton’s views gave rise to the philosophy of uniformitarianism, which is the belief that the present is the key to the past. This would later be popularized by influential lawyer-geologist Charles Lyell in his three-volume work Principles of Geology (1830–1833), the first volume of which greatly influenced Charles Darwin during his famous five-year voyage around the world (1831–1836). Uniformitarianism has nothing to do with observation or the evidence but is accepted in order to avoid interpreting the evidence in light of the catastrophic processes implied by the global Flood described in Genesis 6–8. However, it is biblical revelation, and not observations in the present, that is the key to understanding the past (2 Peter 3:3–6).

Unfortunately, Hutton’s ideas played a vital role in the church abandoning its belief in the biblical account of Creation and the Flood, which had disastrous effects on the culture."

Scotland and Two Men Who Changed the Church and the Culture

At a recent AiG event in Scotland, I came across two men whose beliefs had a lasting impact on the church and the culture for very different reasons.

answersingenesis.org

Hutton's ideas led to what he taught Charles Darwin and Darwinism. Darwin used natural selection which he stole from the church and ran with it to con you into evolution today. You and I are on different sides of this natural selection attributed to Darwin or God.

What gets me is my side was one with it first and now you ignore the credits and use it to leave God by the wayside. Natural selection is his creation and not the lie of evolution.

I don't doubt what you, the atheists, and others state in this thread (even gave credit to the OP), but natural selection doesn't mean evolution. It isn't what led to development of all life forms today. Natural selection redistributes or reduces pre-existing genetic information and mutations corrupt that information.

Natural selection is what God created to ensure survival of the fittest no matter what Darwin claimed.

I did not read this post past the first paragraph. Please stop trolling science threads with your religion.

.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation

This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?

By the simple brilliance of recognizing "survivorship bias". Survivorship bias causes us to miss the forest for the trees.

My favorite illustration of this -- for its simplicity -- is Abraham Wald's (who coined the term "survivorship") analysis of how best to armor our bombers during WW II. He was presented with the following information, which shows where returning bombers were hit by enemy strikes:

View attachment 548978
Without recognizing survivorship bias, one might think that the (limited resource, have to conserve weight) armor should be increased in the spots where the bullet holes are concentrated. This would seem to be where most bullet strikes occur, per the data. So more armor should be spent in those places, right?

No. One would better spend the armor on the places where returning planes show fewer strikes. Why? Because the bombers that were hit in those areas did not make it back. They splashed.

Darwin's revelation of natural selection owes itself to the same turn of thought. The other models that are not observed? They died off, and the more successful models propagated instead. That being the case, selection bias would greatly influence what we observe today.

Darwin's answer to the cause of that bias was the brilliant idea of natural selection.

Darwin has always and will always be the man!

 

[alang1216]

Does America even have a single culture anymore. We have at least two broad cultures - right and left. They are diametrically opposite on many issues.

I agree, the military is a strong part of our culture. Military spending is almost 3 times that of China, the next leading contender.

We have one culture with many flavors. It has always been that way and our ubiquitous media ensures it always will. The differences between Right and Left are not great but they are exacerbated by people whose agenda, for various reasons, is to divide the country.

 

[alang1216]

Natural selection is what God created to ensure survival of the fittest no matter what Darwin claimed.

So you believe in natural selection but not evolution. There is abundant evidence that climate has changed dramatically over time. Africa today is much drier in many places than it was previous. If the environment changes, what is the effect of natural selection?

 

[Anomalism]

But humans are evolving in ways other than natural selection

We will probably augment ourselves with technology eventually. We are close to being able to engineer our own evolution.