Education & Reference an evolutionary question

[J_Moore]

What I did do is clearly make the case that science requires the faith in the existence of "an unknowable, unobservable, unchanging power". Not necessarily a cognizant god, but the ever ellusive unified field theory. In that, science does in every way require the same kind of faith as does a faith based religion

Field theory is
1) Still developing
2) Not even accepted as necessary by all scientists.

Again, you are conflating the unknown and unobserved with the unknowable and unobservable.

It's like saying scientists had faith in atoms before the electron microscope confirmed their existence.

 

[Mooster7]

You made an incorrect statement about science and religion. Or at the very least a statement that needed qualifying. Instead of clarifying you've bombarded us with a lecture that has nothing to do with the original point that Jmoore raised. And i think you did it to say "look at me, i'm intelligent" - which is just stupid in light of what you were saying about posters on the s&p board.

I wasn't saying, "look at me, I'm intelligent." I was trying to qualify & clarify with every post I made. Eventually I completely and mistakenly believed the only way I could make myself quite clear was with a looooong post. Admitedly i was wrong. Especailly in light of the fact that even that post was misunderstood. Your'e right, this is exaclty like what happens on the other board. My huge mistake.

But don't worry. No one will read it. It's "tldr" Again, sorry for any inconvenience. (science is faith based)

 

[J_Moore]

But don't worry. No one will read it. It's "tldr" Again, sorry for any inconvenience. (science is faith based)

I read it Mooster. Your points about the confusion, paradoxes and enormous knowledge gaps in theoretical physics is fair enough.
But your conclusions about what this means for the philosophy of science are not.

 

[nicky]

I wasn't saying, "look at me, I'm intelligent." I was trying to qualify & clarify with every post I made. Eventually I completely and mistakenly believed the only way I could make myself quite clear was with a looooong post. Admitedly i was wrong. Especailly in light of the fact that even that post was misunderstood. Your'e right, this is exaclty like what happens on the other board. My huge mistake.

But don't worry. No one will read it. It's "tldr" Again, sorry for any inconvenience. (science is faith based)

sorry i was unnecessarily bitchy.

 

[Mancey]

Look at the number and variety of dog breeds that have evolved (albeit via artificial selection, but then that's what this thread is about anyway) from wolves in the last few thousand years. Compare the chest size of a Pit Bull Terrier to a Chihuahua. Sure, neither can stop bullets, but one of them has a much better chance of surviving a heavy impact than the other.

Different dog breeds are essentially the same as different races of humans. Its a stretch to call different breeds of dog a result of evolution. They are all basically anatomically identical, can interbreed and produce offspring etc.

Some have specific traits that are beneficial to the role they are designed for, but that's not because of an environmental influence. A pig dog isn't muscular and robust because its ancestors were repeatedly attacked by pigs and only the strongest survived. Man specifically bred muscular, robust dogs together to create an ideal dog.

You could do the same with humans. Perhaps breed super athletes by sticking usain bolt in a cage with Cathy Freeman. But that's due to specific breeding. Its not the result of an environmental influence like shooting someone in the chest to create a thick chested person. The situation you describe would be like finding two thick chested individuals and breeding them. The shooting part would be irrelevant

 

[neroblack]

Maybe if global warming turns out to be true, in 500 years maybe certain apes like chimps will be more suited to the conditions and in 2000 years, start to evolve noticeably.

Honestly, killer whales are the only intelligent animal positioned to keep getting rapidly smarter imo, thanks to their communications, culture, food source variety, strong sense of family, and relationship with humans. Problem for them is that they are stuck in the ocean (although beaching as a primary tactic for food for a pod over 1000 years could start leading to some sort of evolution). Since they are in the ocean, you would think they are trapped there for atleast the next 1-5 million years, especially considering how prosperous they are there. I think culture is the key factor there. They are one of the only species that pass down stories through the generations. That makes them more capable of adapting to situations more quickly than other species, and developing tactics and behaviours over decades, not centuries. For instance, imagine if no humans today knew about WWI & II. If we forgot about slavery, european empires, bubonic plagues, even muhammed & jesus, etc. Culture is necessary to rise to the top.

But obviously, if they were seen as a threat, we could just go out and overfish, cull seals and restart whaling. Unless tidal waves drown out the planet and all land animals perish, killer whales only rule the seas 2nd to humans.

But in all honesty, humans are so adaptable that its impossible to envision another species taking over this planet. If temperatures get hotter, epidemics increase, etc, humans will just look a little different, be more immune to certain viruses and poisons, withstand harsher temperatures, etc. Most mammals adapt in this way, but humans are more aware of what needs to be done. I guess reptiles have previously shown that they can get big when conditions allow it.

Hopefully the honey badger doesnt get bigger (ie. bear size)

 

[Roobs321]

 

[benneth]

Not remotely.

The word ‘faith’ is quite simple. I shouldn’t need to define it, but something along these lines will do:

(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

b: something that is believed especially with strong conviction

So what about faith in science? The problems with a scientific understanding of the universe, especially in the macrocosmic world in which we presume to exist and interact, are many and require a great deal of faith. Just as a Judeo-Christian religious stance requires faith in an ultimate giver of laws to universal origin and workings, science too requires a strong faith in there being universal laws which are not only consistent throughout the universe, but in time as well. Science requires faith in an ultimate set of laws, with or without a law giver. It’s absurd to state a ‘belief’ in a scientific set of laws and at the time refuse to have ‘faith’ in a law giver when neither are necessarily mutually exclusive and neither have been proven. That’s right, the existence of a universal theory of science is completely unproven. Therefore belief in science requires an unproven belief that there are universal fixed rules of physical operation and that a unified theory will someday be discovered. That’s faith, full stop.

But wait there’s more. Exactly what do you mean by science? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Geology? Newtonian physics? Things like that? Sure, we can discuss a petrol molecule, a large bowl of petrol molecules and what happens when you drop in a lit match. You can have a very strong belief in what will happen in a proven controlled experiment which is happening in the mundane macrocosm. However, on a quantum level, which is (as far as anyone knows as of right now) is the very foundational reality of the universe (in theory) nothing at all is happening. That’s because in fundamental reality, there isn’t really any petrol. There’s no real gravity to “pull” the match down into the nonexistent petrol. Most importantly, there’s no thermodynamic arrow (the illusion of time) for there to be a cause and effect in which the petrol can ignite. Worse, there’s no reconciliation between quantum mechanics and the universal theory of the workings of the universe in which the scientific believer has so much faith. In actuality it’s all very illusory.

In truth, the very cutting edge of science and salvation (interesting word, eh?) of science itself rests on finding a universal field theory. As stated, there’s not only faith without evidence that there exists such a thing, there is a great deal of faith that this field theory will be resolved. This cutting edge has hit a wall though and hitting this wall isn’t new. It’s about a hundred years old as a matter of fact. In the past hundred years, there hasn’t been any genuine advances in real science. I know some will say that we’ve had advances in medicine, invented the airplane, jet airplanes, split the atom, went to the moon, discovered ever newer subatomic particles by crashing things together inside particle accelerators, discovered the fact that black holes do indeed fart out radiation, discovered this, discovered that etc. etc. etc. These “discoveries” however have come from applied science. That is, cleverly coming up with new applications and inventions based upon extrapolations of things we already knew. Science is still facing that impregnable brick wall. Albert Einstein himself was so shocked by the implications of the wall – that without a unified theory there is no nice and tidy order and working of the universe which could be known (and thus no real science as we know it) – that he denied quantum mechanics for a very long time despite the fact that his own equations and workings in relativity pointed straight to the science quantum mechanics. There’s faith for you.

What’s more, scientist don’t know why the mundane physical world exists. I like the word ‘macrocosm’ for the physical world even though it’s not a technically correct term “approved” by the pantheon (there’s an interesting word) of science. According to what is currently known in science, the computer you’re reading, the chair you may be sitting on, the desk you might be sitting at shouldn’t spring forth consistently from the quantum foam and continue to exist from nanosecond to nanosecond, or shake to shake or whatever word you prefer for “absolutely tiny bit of time.” Science types have faith that they are going to figure this out though because it’s essential that they have this faith or else they might have to have faith in something else they don’t want to have faith in [preposition]

But your chair doesn’t really exist, Nor does your desk, or your computer. These things along with the entire universal macrocosm are nothing but a tiny hologram existing in your own mind (whatever that is). Or maybe it’s a great big hologram existing in your great big mind. Regardless, the macrocosm relies upon being observed for its very pseudo-existence. Be sure to tell the universe, “you’re welcome.” This has some fun implications for astronomy. The universe perhaps isn’t very large at all. Trillions of light years? What’s that? Any rate, if you are convinced you are an infinitesimally small part of something in a vast universe which has physical laws, and we know that this universe absolutely requires observation to exist, who is making all these nearly GOD-like observations to keep the universe from winking out of existence? Don’t bother answering that because I’m already very familiar with the scientific counter argument to that, and I only want to say that the counter argument is unproven and requires faith. Myself, I’m fine either way.

I hate to use the analogy of ‘The Matrix’ movie because it’s been done to death – especially by teenagers getting high after school. But it’s a really good analogy so I’m going to use it anyway. The hologram in your mind which you believe is the physical macrocosm in which you live, is very much like those stuck in the matrix. Very much. Practically identical. Could be identical, although we don’t know if our hologram is computer generated from outside. You can think so if you want, but that requires faith without proof. Doesn’t matter because I want to make a different point. Imagine you’re watching The Matrix, but instead of following Keanu Reeves around on his kung fu adventures, you are watching a learned scientist and a theologian, who are trapped unknowingly in the matrix, arguing about the origin and nature of physical reality and the universe. Aren’t those two people absurd? Actually, the scientist is the most absurd of the two because the theologian actually has a point even though he doesn’t fully understand the enormity of it. Then imagine the scene shifts to two people arguing about whether the material world exists and one of them says, “I know my desk exists because I can see it and touch it.” Elsewhere people are talking about evolution....Funny, isn’t it?

Good read

 

[Mooster7]

I read it Mooster. Your points about the confusion, paradoxes and enormous knowledge gaps in theoretical physics is fair enough.
But your conclusions about what this means for the philosophy of science are not.

Probably 5% of theoretical physicists would agree with you. So there's an excellent chance you're right. 100% of them would disagree with me that they'll never find an equation for a unified field theory, but none of them would want to leave it up for a vote.

 

[Colin D'Cops]

Good read

Good quote

 

[Colin D'Cops]

Some have specific traits that are beneficial to the role they are designed for, but that's not because of an environmental influence. A pig dog isn't muscular and robust because its ancestors were repeatedly attacked by pigs and only the strongest survived. Man specifically bred muscular, robust dogs together to create an ideal dog.

Haha just imagining that as I speak type. "Pig dawg" - a saying 50cent would've used surely