Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos
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!
Evolution
- Thread starter sabrina
- Start date
-
- Tags
- discussion
Corrax Talrus
Member
[member="sabrina"]
First off, I don't believe I ever said anything about evolution. I was speaking of naturalistic theories of first cause versus theistic theories of first cause. That predates evolution (which is a biological theory of species diversity) by literally forever. My curiosity was piqued by Damien's personal anecdote regarding the greater degree of difficulty in the concession of a Deity.
Secondly, the claim that it's proven like gravity is a bit of a misnomer, unless you care to go into further specifics. Evolution is a very broad topic. There are aspects of evolution that are totally iron clad and utterly irrefutable (i.e. natural selection). There are other aspects that even naturalistic scientists can't find common ground on. The theory of evolution in broad terms is not in any way unified.
Third, regardless of one's view on various aspects of evolution, it is utterly undeniable that the existence of a mechanism (in which role evolution certainly serves) cannot possibly serve to disprove the existence of an agent. One can argue that mechanisms can derive through chance, but one cannot argue that it must be so.
Fourthly, I find myself satirically insulted that the first thing you ever said to me is a tongue-in-cheek insult to my intelligence ....
First off, I don't believe I ever said anything about evolution. I was speaking of naturalistic theories of first cause versus theistic theories of first cause. That predates evolution (which is a biological theory of species diversity) by literally forever. My curiosity was piqued by Damien's personal anecdote regarding the greater degree of difficulty in the concession of a Deity.
Secondly, the claim that it's proven like gravity is a bit of a misnomer, unless you care to go into further specifics. Evolution is a very broad topic. There are aspects of evolution that are totally iron clad and utterly irrefutable (i.e. natural selection). There are other aspects that even naturalistic scientists can't find common ground on. The theory of evolution in broad terms is not in any way unified.
Third, regardless of one's view on various aspects of evolution, it is utterly undeniable that the existence of a mechanism (in which role evolution certainly serves) cannot possibly serve to disprove the existence of an agent. One can argue that mechanisms can derive through chance, but one cannot argue that it must be so.
Fourthly, I find myself satirically insulted that the first thing you ever said to me is a tongue-in-cheek insult to my intelligence ....
sabrina
Well-Known Member
[member="Corrax Talrus"] I have dislexyia, and may mis understood you for point 4
Though for the rest, only thing they have not completely decide on how much is nature v nurture, and why certain things evolved like they did.
Humans being one of them, hence the theory I really liked that we are semi aquatic mammals.
As it explains why we are bipedal species, and why we lost our fur, and why our fingers and toes go wrinkly.
Though for the rest, only thing they have not completely decide on how much is nature v nurture, and why certain things evolved like they did.
Humans being one of them, hence the theory I really liked that we are semi aquatic mammals.
As it explains why we are bipedal species, and why we lost our fur, and why our fingers and toes go wrinkly.
Corrax Talrus
Member
[member="sabrina"]
Point 4 was simply that your comment seemed to imply that I was some kind of imbecile {EDIT: I originally left out the space between of and imbecile ... so perhaps it wasn't that far from the truth ... }. I found that insulting ....
As for your other points, evolution as a whole is easily able to be proven in terms of the adaptation of species. However, unless I missed some great scientific discovery, the discovery of evidence regarding the actual process of species transition has been wholly elusive. As well-known naturalist David Berlinski points out: 1) The fossil record does not in any way match the predictions of Darwinian evolution on a macro scale. 2) The central claim of Darwinian Evolution that natural selection and random adaptation is able to account for a great amount of complexity is one that is utterly impossible to examine in nature. 3) In all physical sciences, computer models can be programmed to run simulations that support equations and predict consequences. However, this cannot be done with a Darwinian theory of species origins on a macro scale. Without entering into programs and manipulating computer constraints manually, current genetic algorithms cannot put together anything resembling what we see out of the current model of naturalistic species origins, and in fact will only generate realistic results when programmed not to use Darwinian mechanisms. 4) There is an absolute lack of laboratory evidence. We should be able to manipulate organisms, but "when we look at dogs, no matter how far back we go, they're still dogs. When we look at bacteria, no matter what we do, they stay bugs. They don't change in their fundamental nature. There seems to be some inherent species limitation, and we have no good explanation for this in terms of Darwinian theory."
The fact of the matter is that the only solid evidence we have in terms of genetic variation are small variations, ill-equipped to account for the mass amount of genetic complexity necessary for some aspects of current Darwinian theories. Thus to label the entirety of 'evolution' as a proven fact is misleading. The current understanding of Darwinian theories, according to Richard Dawkins, is 'adequate' to explain life as we understand it. However, even in his writings and interviews he'll speak to the fact that many aspects of our understanding rely on predictions and conjecture, and have yet to receive the evidentiary weight required of absolute proof.
Point 4 was simply that your comment seemed to imply that I was some kind of imbecile {EDIT: I originally left out the space between of and imbecile ... so perhaps it wasn't that far from the truth ... }. I found that insulting ....
As for your other points, evolution as a whole is easily able to be proven in terms of the adaptation of species. However, unless I missed some great scientific discovery, the discovery of evidence regarding the actual process of species transition has been wholly elusive. As well-known naturalist David Berlinski points out: 1) The fossil record does not in any way match the predictions of Darwinian evolution on a macro scale. 2) The central claim of Darwinian Evolution that natural selection and random adaptation is able to account for a great amount of complexity is one that is utterly impossible to examine in nature. 3) In all physical sciences, computer models can be programmed to run simulations that support equations and predict consequences. However, this cannot be done with a Darwinian theory of species origins on a macro scale. Without entering into programs and manipulating computer constraints manually, current genetic algorithms cannot put together anything resembling what we see out of the current model of naturalistic species origins, and in fact will only generate realistic results when programmed not to use Darwinian mechanisms. 4) There is an absolute lack of laboratory evidence. We should be able to manipulate organisms, but "when we look at dogs, no matter how far back we go, they're still dogs. When we look at bacteria, no matter what we do, they stay bugs. They don't change in their fundamental nature. There seems to be some inherent species limitation, and we have no good explanation for this in terms of Darwinian theory."
The fact of the matter is that the only solid evidence we have in terms of genetic variation are small variations, ill-equipped to account for the mass amount of genetic complexity necessary for some aspects of current Darwinian theories. Thus to label the entirety of 'evolution' as a proven fact is misleading. The current understanding of Darwinian theories, according to Richard Dawkins, is 'adequate' to explain life as we understand it. However, even in his writings and interviews he'll speak to the fact that many aspects of our understanding rely on predictions and conjecture, and have yet to receive the evidentiary weight required of absolute proof.
Corrax Talrus
Member
[member="sabrina"]
Yes, but likeness does not prove ancestry. It's a piece of evidence with multiple explanations. At any rate, I didn't intend to jump into the thread and debate the nuances of Darwinian theory, so my apologies for having hijacked the thread. I was just curious regarding Damien's anecdotal reference.
So I'll bow out, now
Yes, but likeness does not prove ancestry. It's a piece of evidence with multiple explanations. At any rate, I didn't intend to jump into the thread and debate the nuances of Darwinian theory, so my apologies for having hijacked the thread. I was just curious regarding Damien's anecdotal reference.
So I'll bow out, now
