Evolution Pros and Cons

[Thunderbird]

Pyro, your attacks are becoming more vicious and against the supposed aims and rules of the forum. If you are the expert you claim to be, why not explain the points I have raised instead of demeaning me for raising them? I can't see where your comments do anything to further the knowledge of anyone, they coarsen the discourse. You seem to think I am the only person around that has questions about

the explanations about evolution.

If you want to have disagreements with me personally, be man enough to do it on private mail.

Pyro’s attacks are aimed at your flawed logic dubious intent and lack of humility in the face of evidence brought into view by sincere people that have for generations worked and studied so we might learn.

A prerequisite to give a fair assessment of evolution requires objective curiosity along with years of reading and rereading this evidence.

We have many members that are here to gain knowledge from those who have shelves stuffed with these dog eared science books. A LITTLE HUMILITY and a lot more home work is your best solution, but as pyro’s has pointed out, that is not you’re real intent here.

[questor]

Michael, I am sorry you have made more of my statements than I said.

''I am not religious, but I do think the universe has intelligent design.''

This statement says I am not religious, but I THINK the universe has intelligent design. This is my opinion, I do not make any claims, I do not talk about religion. I do not say I am certain there is ID or make any claims for it. From my observation of the universe I see evidence of order, not chaos.

 

''I believe in cause and effect. everything has a cause. Once you determine the cause, you may be able to create the effect.''

This statement says everything(effect) has a cause. This has nothing to do with God or religion, it has to do with the concept of cause and effect. If you know some effects that have no cause please say whay they are. You may want to google it. If you know the cause of the biochemical basis of life, tell me the reactions and how they are carried out. As a matter of fact, why don't you explain life itself to me ,since that is what we are talking abou?.

Why do you continue to talk about this issue when I have made myself perfectly clear? We have already covered these arguments before.

[questor]

Galapagos, I thought you were having trouble reading my posts, now I am sure of it. Please give the quotes where I have referred to religion or God. Instead of discussing the biochemical basis of evolution, you bring up the strawman of religion. No one is talking about religion but you and Moon. If these biochemical reactions are mundane, why don't you discuss how the genetic code is passed on and explain why the researchers can't do it?

[questor]

T-bird, there have been discussions on this site arguing opposing views about SR, the Big Bang, politics and many other issues. I do not hold myself out as an expert, but I do have a right to my opinion. I do not insult people or belittle them, and I should receive the same treatment. Pyro has attacked me verbally on three occasions and I have not retaliated. How humble should I be? I don't know all the answers and I respect the knowledge and talent of many of the members here. I came here to learn and not be insulted for my views. When I learn the truth I readily accept it.Do you think there is something wrong with my questions or are my questions already in the realm of knowledge? Have you read this thread?

[Essay]

sorry, i'm catching up....

"So, actually we must understand the nature of life and at what particulate level it resides in order to answer all the questions of evolution." -Q

Hmmm. You've used this phrasing before and I assumed you meant "particular level" rather than "particulate level," but now I think you feel there must be some particle, on the scale of electrons, atoms or molecules, that mediates the intelligence that seems to be there.

===

 

"They are not spontaneous and occur with reason." -Q

Actually, thermodynamics explains how reactions do occur "spontaneously" and without any reason other than the phycial properties of the thing reacting to its environment's physical properties.

...or would it be the environment reacting with the thing's physical properties?

 

"None of the biochemical molecules have a brain, so what causes their activity?" -Q

But you think they act like they have a brain :) ...as if there was some intelligent cause?

===

 

..but I THINK the universe has intelligent design.

...

From my observation of the universe I see evidence of order, not chaos.

 

"We have not answered the question of what bottom line motivating force dictates the activity of the chemistry of carbon compounds." -Q

We've answered this question many times, I think.

 

...it is PHYSICS!

 

Questor, are you aware of the anthropic principle?

It's like Evolution, but applied to Big Bangs.

 

For instance, if the mass of the electron was 1/1000 of a percent heavier than it is, then the periodic table of elements in such a universe would have far fewer elements in it, and they would have a different chemistry with each other.

 

...or maybe there'd be more elements than our familiar 92; but they definitely would be different elements than we are familiar with, and they would have different physical and chemical properties--different chemistry.

 

So ...a creature sitting in that universe, with different physics and chemistry, would look around and say "look how finely tuned the universe is, and how some of the more common elements are suited to react with some other elements over a range of conditions. Life as we know it wouldn't be possible unless these elements had these particular properties, so it must be designed.

.

.

.

I'd agree that our universe seems very finely tuned, promoting a lot of potential for variety (chemistry and biology)...

...for all I know, God set up all of those parameters and constants, in the beginning...

 

...but all of the design that you see in chemistry, nature and life, follows quite simply from this initial design of physics.

That is why I call physics the cause of chemistry, ...which is the cause of biology, ...which is the cause of life, ...which is the cause of intelligence.

 

===

 

Setting the physical parameters and constants may be called intelligent design, but what difference does it make to our understanding of how things work now?

 

~ :)

 

p.s. try:

anthropic principle

...or "anthropic principle" in Wikipedia

 

though you'll probably prefer:

Design and the Anthropic Principle

[Pyrotex]

Galapagos, I thought you were having trouble reading my posts, now I am sure of it. Please give the quotes where I have referred to religion or God. Instead of discussing the biochemical basis of evolution, you bring up the strawman of religion. No one is talking about religion but you and Moon. If these biochemical reactions are mundane, why don't you discuss how the genetic code is passed on and explain why the researchers can't do it?

Galapagos did exactly as you requested, proving once again that you cannot be trusted to even be truthful about what you yourself have said.

 

You can stop asking for quotes, DQ. Your posts are there for everyone to see. As well as your tactic of trying to make it as difficult and laborious as possible for us to have a meaningful conversation with you. You're always demanding that we DO things for you! Explain this to you. Find your quotes for you. Explain your meanings to you. Go read websites for you. Refute this for you. Refute that for you.

 

Go refute yourself.

[questor]

Essay, you are aware of molecules, atomic and sub-atomic particles?

''"So, actually we must understand the nature of life and at what particulate level it resides in order to answer all the questions of evolution." -Q Does this now make sense to you?

 

I am not religious as I have said many times before. I had my internal arguments about God and religion many years ago. Your links may be better addressed to some of the other posters who prefer to talk religion rather than wrestle with the difficult questions of biochemical reactions.

Explain to me how Physics dictates the reaction of anything? Physics is merely the name of a branch of science. The reactions are between substrates and catalyzed by enzymes. I cannot explain the cause or timing of these reactions, and that has been my question to the group.

[Moontanman]

T-bird, there have been discussions on this site arguing opposing views about SR, the Big Bang, politics and many other issues. I do not hold myself out as an expert, but I do have a right to my opinion. I do not insult people or belittle them, and I should receive the same treatment. Pyro has attacked me verbally on three occasions and I have not retaliated. How humble should I be? I don't know all the answers and I respect the knowledge and talent of many of the members here. I came here to learn and not be insulted for my views. When I learn the truth I readily accept it.Do you think there is something wrong with my questions or are my questions already in the realm of knowledge? Have you read this thread?

 

In the discussions about things like the big bang and SR people give other theories of how or what these things are, you just say no I don't believe it could be true. To answer your never ending question I do not know of anything that has a cause, everything happens simply because it can or because it's the most likely thing to happen. No cause is necessary, I am sorry I forgot about it but the anthropic principle explains why the universe seems to be designed. No matter how well designed the universe seems to be if it was different we wouldn't be here to complain or to see it as different. I do not ascribe to the BBT but if the BB does indeed repeat ever few trillion years it's possible the laws of the universe we see reset as well. A random reset of the laws of nature. The BB could repeat millions of time and never get the same set of laws again. We just happen to be living in a incarnation of the universe where the laws allow us to exist. Anything else and we wouldn't be here to say wow if the laws were just a bit different we wouldn't be here. You keep saying that none of us intelligent enough or well read enough to know or to understand. I am very well read on this subject, it's something I've had intent interest in since I was a little boy. There are others here who actually make things like biology part of how they make a living. I could take you out into the local swamps and water ways and show you evolution in progress, many fishes that are right now diverging into species, the only cause is environmental pressure. Again I can think of nothing that happens due to some mysterious unknown cause.

[Pyrotex]

...Explain to me how Physics dictates the reaction of anything?

:)Oh, help me! I don't understand Physics! Somebody explain all of Physics to me!

...I cannot explain the cause or timing of these reactions...

:) And while you're at it, please explain organic chemistry and cellular chemistry to me! That's only about 5,000 pages of college text information :) And if you don't explain it all to me, then you people are just rude and mean

:eek2: :eek2: :) ;) :D

[questor]

Moon, when did I say this?

''You keep saying that none of us intelligent enough or well read enough to know or to understand.'' Do you have a quote to that effect? Did you just make this up for some reason? I think there are a lot of people here who are well infomed, educated, and intelligent and I have no recollection of saying otherwise. Just because they are intelligent does not mean they know all the answers, no one does. That does not mean I cannot question theories which have not answered all the questions. How about supplying a supporting quote when you accuse me of something I did not do?

[Pyrotex]

...I came here to learn...Do you think there is something wrong with my questions...?

Wrong again Darth Questor.

 

I'm going to be very polite and civil to you. There is something wrong with your questions. Your questions make too many demands. So many demands, in fact, that it brings into question the very honesty of your questions. Your questions and your followup comments demonstrate no "sweat equity" on your part. No real effort. No real knowledge. No contribution. No willingness to work with us, or even to "work" at all.

 

You want us to do all the work. ALL the work. You want us to teach you physics and chemistry and explain the inner workings of the cell. And no matter what is offered, it never is enough for you. You want more. And moreandmoreandmoreandmoreandmore...

 

It's obvious, DQ, that this is just a troll game: Make the poor Hypo saps run around in circles, day after day, HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!

 

Sorry, but this Hypo sap has had enough of you. In the politest and most civil way possible, I wish to inform you that I will appear in every thread that you appear in. I will respond to every post you post. I will warn every noobie of the true nature of your [ahem] character. I will breathe down your neck. I will growl softly and continuously in your ear.

 

Until you either leave Hypography for good.

Or publicly confess your sins.

Sincerely,

Nelson Thompson

aka, Pyrotex

[questor]

This has become an interesting spectacle, grown men acting like silly juveniles.

I asked Galapagos to provide quotes where I had discussed God. I was sent a couple of links about God and theology that had nothing to do with my question. Was this the answer I requested? Galapagos has still not answered.

 

Pyro, this has become quite intense, hasn't it? You went to a lot of trouble on your last outburst. Clever graphics. Am I supposed to enjoy these tantrums or just stay my humble self?

P.S, I am not your brother, so you can't punish him through me.

[Moontanman]

Moon, when did I say this?

''You keep saying that none of us intelligent enough or well read enough to know or to understand.'' Do you have a quote to that effect? Did you just make this up for some reason? I think there are a lot of people here who are well infomed, educated, and intelligent and I have no recollection of saying otherwise. Just because they are intelligent does not mean they know all the answers, no one does. That does not mean I cannot question theories which have not answered all the questions. How about supplying a supporting quote when you accuse me of something I did not do?

 

Since you ignored my supporting quotes last time and shifted the blame to me yet again, I will not provide any quotes this time but in nearly all of your posts there has been the theme of we don't know or cannot know why these things happen. If you think I overstated your overall theme then I am sorry you made it.

[Pyrotex]

Well, it would appear that this thread has lost a certain amount of its "attraction", judging from the paucity of posts. Funny how a troll can create so much interest for a while. The obvious reason is that some of them, like Questor, are apparently very intelligent, ask intelligent questions (at first), and we are so eager to show that we can answer them.

 

The big difference between a true seeker ("questor") and a troll, is that the seeker cares about our answers. A troll does not.

A true seeker does not send US out on wild goose chases but is eager to do their own research once we have provided the information they needed. A troll does not do his own research, and typically refuses to accept the information we provide, on one pretext or another.

 

This should be an excellent lesson for all of us on how to identify trolls. Especially the super-trolls who have learned how to avoid the stupid mistakes that get most trolls kicked out early. Super-trolls may even start legitimate threads on some subjects and conduct themselves appropriately there.

 

But even super-trolls usually trip themselves up (and reveal their true nature) when they start denying that they said the very things they said. When they start demanding quotes from their past posts. When they start quibbling about what they meant or insinuated in their previous posts. Keep a sharp eye out for this tactic. It is meant merely to send you out on one wild goose chase after another, and nothing more.

 

If my conduct towards Questor offended any of you, I apologize. I would be happy to respond to any comments you might have.

[Moontanman]

I for one would like to see less name calling and other attacks, even on super trolls. I know the frustration and I have been guilty many times of doing this but when a guest logs on and sees this type of posting I have to wonder what they think. Especially if they didn't understand the whys of what we are discussing. I see the disingenuous arguments for ID and creationism all the time being repeated as absolute truth on TV, in Movies, in school board meetings, everywhere. We need to stop this from happening on this forum, This forum can be a light of truth in the darkness. I would like to see moderators step in when a discussion becomes heated and point out who is being disingenuous and enforce the rules. Questor violated rules with impunity many times, over and over again, and no one took notice. He is a troll no doubt, I wanted to believe he was just misinformed but it become evident he was not misinformed he was attempting to misinform everyone else by berating everyone until they gave up. At the very least he should have been told that he was welcome to his beliefs but that his beliefs didn't extend to changing science or the evidence for scientific thought. I would like to see a consensus on how this will be handled in the future, no one is more guilty than I of loosing it when confronted by some insisting nonsense masquerading as the truth but I think I need to do better in the future.

[HydrogenBond]

Originally Posted by wiki

In common parlance, "devolution", or backward evolution is the notion a species may evolve into more "primitive" forms. From a scientific perspective, devolution does not exist.[1][2] Lay people may see evolution as "progress", reflecting the 19th century ideas of Lamarckism and orthogenesis, but modern genetically-based biological evolution theory asserts that evolution occurs by such mechanisms as natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation, and is therefore not directional, forward or backward in time; hence "devolution" is not a valid concept.

 

Maybe the confusion is the word "evolve" appeared in the 16th century. It means to make more complex. I would assume Darwin had this language consistency in mind, since this was before modern genetics. But I also see, using this linguistics definition leads to many examples which are not consistent with progress. Maybe the term was then modified to mean evolve or de-evolve in the classic sense sense of the original meaning. This would lead to confusion and the impression of a wishy-washy theory, so we change that to nondirectional and make de-evolve invalid to take some wishy out of wishy-washy.

 

When a child see the pictures of "the ascent of man" from an ape, each picture shows forward progress. The modern theory would be better expressed if these pictures were more random, so it doesn't unintentionally sales pitch forward progress. That is where I got my misconception at a young age. I have argued how it can go backwards on an objective scale of the original meaning of the word to make more complex.

 

In the 1980's Michael Jackson coined the phrase "bad". It didn't mean bad in the traditional sense, but was another way to say good while also implying "sort of bad". Sort of a paradox. Is evolution an inner joke among scientists that purposely leads on the layman via false advertising? If you place the ascent of man picture series, using random order, evolution would look irrational. How about truth in advertising and see what happens.

 

Nothing personal Galapagos and others. You have been very patient and very informative. I am splitting hairs now. But if science wants to recruit open minds it has to be honest with the young people.

[Galapagos]

Maybe the confusion is the word "evolve" appeared in the 16th century. It means to make more complex. I would assume Darwin had this language consistency in mind, since this was before modern genetics. But I also see, using this linguistics definition leads to many examples which are not consistent with progress. Maybe the term was then modified to mean evolve or de-evolve in the classic sense sense of the original meaning. This would lead to confusion and the impression of a wishy-washy theory, so we change that to nondirectional and make de-evolve invalid to take some wishy out of wishy-washy.

There is a section on the wiki page for evolution as a word discussing the confusion about definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(term)

In colloquial contexts, evolution can refer to any sort of progressive development, and often bears a connotation of gradual improvement: evolution is understood as a process that results in greater quality or complexity. This common definition, when misapplied to biological evolution, leads to frequent misunderstandings. For example, the idea of devolution ("backwards" evolution) is a result of erroneously assuming that evolution is directional or has a specific goal, or that it necessarily leads to greater complexity. In reality, the evolution of organisms does not entail objective improvement; advancements are only situational. It is not part of the theory of evolution to consider any one species, such as humans, to be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. Likewise, evolution does not require that organisms become more complex. Depending on the situation, organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, and all three of these trends have been observed in biological evolution.[2]

 

Darwin was not the first one to refer to organismal change as evolution, either. The term was within the context of various theories of orthogenesis, saltationism, and transmutationism before Darwin, and it was just sort of adopted(a bit of cultural evolution) for his explanations of the same phenomenon(animals changing over time). The fact that there was no progress, no optimization, and no perfection in Darwinian evolution wasn't even made very clear until other thinkers came along later and made the case a solid one.

 

When a child see the pictures of "the ascent of man" from an ape, each picture shows forward progress. The modern theory would be better expressed if these pictures were more random, so it doesn't unintentionally sales pitch forward progress. That is where I got my misconception at a young age. I have argued how it can go backwards on an objective scale of the original meaning of the word to make more complex.

Yes, this pervasive iconography is very misleading. In Stephen Jay Gould's "Wonderful Life", he discusses the history, impact, and misleading nature of the "ape to man" imagery in detail. I would recommend it to those curious or perplexed.

The most obvious objection to that image(imo) is that it has a modern chimpanzee at one end, and a modern human at the other. We did not evolved from chimpanzees, especially not a modern one!

 

In the 1980's Michael Jackson coined the phrase "bad". It didn't mean bad in the traditional sense, but was another way to say good while also implying "sort of bad". Sort of a paradox. Is evolution an inner joke among scientists that purposely leads on the layman via false advertising? If you place the ascent of man picture series, using random order, evolution would look irrational. How about truth in advertising and see what happens.

 

Nothing personal Galapagos and others. You have been very patient and very informative. I am splitting hairs now. But if science wants to recruit open minds it has to be honest with the young people.

I would hope that most responsible modern biologists know better than to disseminate that iconography as it is misleading in more ways than one.

The most that can be done is try to correct it when you come across it, and I agree, it is probably unhelpful with regards to public relations as well as pedagogy.

Despite my disagreement with the science behind the image, I still can't help but find this parody a bit humorous: