The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
uwot
Posts: 4892
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by uwot » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:26 pm

davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:11 pm
Population genetics
I don't think that's what Darwin originally had in mind.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12312
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:15 am

uwot wrote: It used to be the national sport of Holland. I think it's using English swear words these days.
Belgium was even worse. :)

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by Walker » Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:52 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:59 am
Walker wrote:Evolution is not a scientific law because evolution has merely been inferred and not observed. ...
Evolution observed
You can witness mutations and call them evolution under the broad latitude that all change is evolution. You can infer that the needs of the organism prompted the mutation to evolve, or you can infer that the mutation is random and any mutations not yet eaten and available to witness, have evolved. However, genetic degeneration disproves that all change is evolution. Or progress, for that matter.
davidm wrote:Actually that agrees with me and not you.
Uh huh. Sounds more like, you win some, and then you lose some. :lol:

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by Walker » Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:03 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:26 pm
Walker wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:46 pm
No, I’m afraid you’re simply wrong, insulting, smug science guy with an unsupported opinion.
Er? Them in glass houses...
Walker wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:46 pm
...theories are inferred...
Yes they are, but in the case of evolution, the evidence that creatures, including human beings have evolved is so overwhelming, that to deny it happened takes some chutzpah. If you want to tack your god onto it, that is entirely your business, but that is an inference for which there is no evidence.
The only god being tacked on around here is the Science God.

Not even Darwin believed so unquestioningly, nor does a scientist.

Examine the doubts of Darwin rather than the certainties of his acolytes.

uwot
Posts: 4892
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by uwot » Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:19 am

Walker wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:03 am
The only god being tacked on around here is the Science God.
Well, that's two gods you've invented. Are you starting a pantheon? You really don't understand science at all. It is, in essence the study of the natural world, the aim of which is to discover predictable patterns, that we can quantify, thereby giving us the means to manipulate our environment to whatever ends suit our purpose. Whether you attribute those patterns to 'design' is, as I said, entirely your business. But the one thing I suspect everyone would agree on, is that we cannot control any god by scientific or technological means. For that reason, there is no point including god in science, because if he, she or it is going to do mad crazy shit, there's fuck all we can do about it.
Walker wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:03 am
Not even Darwin believed so unquestioningly, nor does a scientist.
Indeed. As I explained, it is the theory of evolution by natural selection. It was stated in those terms, because, at the time, the prevailing hypothesis was that god did it. For all I know, he did, but if that's so, and you wish to rejoice in his handiwork, then look at it and don't kid yourself it is something which it demonstrably isn't.
Science will never prove that there is no god; what it can do, and has done, it demonstrate that certain passages of holy books, whatever their allegorical merit, can only be taken literally by complete idiots.
Walker wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:03 am
Examine the doubts of Darwin rather than the certainties of his acolytes.
Been there, done that.

uwot
Posts: 4892
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by uwot » Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:22 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:15 am
uwot wrote: It used to be the national sport of Holland. I think it's using English swear words these days.
Belgium was even worse. :)
True. There is an obvious correlation between the number of patates shops and the quality of driving. I don't know if any causal link has ever been established.

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by Walker » Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:59 am

uwot wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:19 am
Walker wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:03 am
Examine the doubts of Darwin rather than the certainties of his acolytes.
Been there, done that.
It’s a principle (idea) not restricted to a particular form, and not the person-to-person advice you hear, as slotted in Eleanor’s taxonomy.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
- Eleanor Roosevelt

True believer acolytes often cloak their science worship behind the label of scientist, however, the principle is bigger than the cloaking label.

uwot
Posts: 4892
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by uwot » Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:35 am

Walker wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:59 am
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
- Eleanor Roosevelt

True believer acolytes often cloak their science worship behind the label of scientist...
Bingo. "...small minds discuss people."
Walker wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:59 am
...however, the principle is bigger than the cloaking label.
Very well, great mind; what is the idea behind the principle?

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by davidm » Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:41 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:26 pm
davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:11 pm
Population genetics
I don't think that's what Darwin originally had in mind.
Well, no, but that's what it is now. Evolutionary theory has moved far beyond Darwin, who did not even know about genes.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by davidm » Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:50 pm

Walker wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:52 am
Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:59 am
Walker wrote:Evolution is not a scientific law because evolution has merely been inferred and not observed. ...
Evolution observed
You can witness mutations and call them evolution under the broad latitude that all change is evolution.
Well that pretty much is right. Evolution is a change in gene frequencies over time.
You can infer that the needs of the organism prompted the mutation to evolve,
That is Lamarckism and has been disproved. Also, organisms do not evolve; populations do.
or you can infer that the mutation is random and any mutations not yet eaten and available to witness, have evolved.
Well, mutations do not evolve, populations do; but apart from that the above is pretty much correct.
However, genetic degeneration disproves that all change is evolution.
Erm?
Or progress, for that matter.
There is no notion of progress in evolution. Evolutionary change is not progress, it's just change.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by davidm » Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:59 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:19 am
As I explained, it is the theory of evolution by natural selection.
It's more than that, though. At the molecular level evolution appears to be dominated not be selection but by the genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral: Neither beneficial nor deleterious.
Walker wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:03 am
Examine the doubts of Darwin ...
Hm! Which doubts would those be? I wonder ... could your "doubts of Darwin" have been derived from the title of a certain book?

We know a lot more than Darwin did in any case. The evidence for evolutionary change over time is incontrovertible.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:33 pm

davidm wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:50 pm
Walker wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:52 am
Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:59 am

Evolution observed
You can witness mutations and call them evolution under the broad latitude that all change is evolution.
Well that pretty much is right. Evolution is a change in gene frequencies over time.
You can infer that the needs of the organism prompted the mutation to evolve,
That is Lamarckism and has been disproved. Also, organisms do not evolve; populations do.
or you can infer that the mutation is random and any mutations not yet eaten and available to witness, have evolved.
Well, mutations do not evolve, populations do; but apart from that the above is pretty much correct.
However, genetic degeneration disproves that all change is evolution.
Erm?
Or progress, for that matter.
There is no notion of progress in evolution. Evolutionary change is not progress, it's just change.
You are arguing with a person that hasn't got a clue about what he is talking about.

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL » Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:32 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:04 am
While I accept the theory of evolution as being explanative in a variety of cases, I still remain skeptical as to it being 100%.

Here's something to consider. From the moment that the human egg gets fertilized, it goes through stages that mimics biohistory, the fish stage and other stages of life up to the time it gets born. When it gets born, it has very little hair which is opposite to our primate ancestors having lots of hair. Then later on, the Homo Sapiens man child gets hairier as it grows into manhood and even more hair as it gets very old, opposite to human ancestors which has been losing hair throughout history (from a male perspective, females having even less hair).

Again I'm not saying that the theory is invalid. But I think there are complications it can't handle.

What do you think about this?

PhilX
I'm a late comer and of course didn't read the entire thread with its 87 posts.

I think that the theory of evolution is far from perfect. It assumes a full cell simply exists and then starts evolving. This is the first, if not the fatal, flaw.

There are two ways to explain evolution (taking the flaw for granted), either trial and error, as it is tradition since Darwin, or by creating new DNA. The first one is senseless and unsupported empirically (except by illusions taught at college and thereafter). The second one is statistically impossible apart from other difficulties at large (if the first one isn't already).

However the second one is the most practical and efficient. It's the difference between an Engineer that builds a skyscraper by trial and error and another one who makes a project on paper that only advances when it's all perfect.

However, returning to the inaugural post, will the author forgive my rhetorical question, but how on earth can one dare challenging the entirety of a paradigmatic theory, like Darwinian evolutionism, by discussing hair?

P.S. - Before you ask (or affirm): No, I'm not a Creationism (whatever this is). Don't even think about that. At any time.

Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Londoner » Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:49 am

PauloL wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:32 am

I think that the theory of evolution is far from perfect. It assumes a full cell simply exists and then starts evolving. This is the first, if not the fatal, flaw.
In the interests of clarity, are you saying that something as complicated as a cell could not possibly have arisen through any natural processes i.e. in a way explicable through science?
P.S. - Before you ask (or affirm): No, I'm not a Creationism (whatever this is). Don't even think about that. At any time.
If cells could not have arisen through any natural process, how did they come into being?

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL » Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:02 pm

Londoner wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:49 am
Thanks for your question, even if I'm sorry that you're using my "P.S.", where I tell you I'm not a Creationist.

That's a very good question and I'd like to have an answer. You don't just need any cell, but a cell complex enough for lifelong autonomy and to replicate without any errors. And yet, perhaps, it must allow for diversification so that in the end you don't have one cell, but many different complex cells that can replicate without errors.

If you have an answer, please let me know and we'll win a Nobel prize if you wish to share.

It's funny how one person can explain a priori how you have complex life on earth in the 19th century based on some empirical observations by traveling to exotic locations and yet you can't explain the birth of the very first cell in the 21st century.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests