Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[Wahooti Fandango]

Agreed.

The existence of evolution, both micro and macro, hasn't been denied by those who would be construed as 'mystics' either. Indeed micro-evolution via natural selection is fully embraced. It's just the mechanism in relation to macro advancements that is in dispute.

Many metaphysicians (or mystics or whatever) also talk of devolution as well. Ever wondered what the root cause of Jews / Muslims not eating pork is?

The only exposure I have had to investigations of this issue is Mary Douglas in Purity and Danger.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QG...8vX_AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Douglas

 

[Chief]

What's not to love about XKCD?

 

[Chief]

There is a perpetual misconception that gradualism works linearly, slowly morphing into something better.

As for the fossil record being "incomplete", there are places that have continuous local records of millions of years (long enough to "adequately conceptualise" at least one example of a species changing).

One Gould (remembering he is a Darwinist!) often references is the Bighorn Basin which has continuous records of around 5 million years. And the record shows species that were once meant to have evolved from each other overlap in time and the record shows sudden appearance, stasis and sudden disappearance.

Of course species will overlap. Evolution does not demand that we believe that one species must entirely die out before another can evolve from it.

We know for a fact that animals migrate. Environments change, sometimes more quickly than at other times. The environment is the inefficient sieve that sorts the good from the bad. Sometimes the good turns out to be the bad, and the bad is re-purposed into good.

Populations move at different times and speeds. Environment changes at different times and speeds. Easy and simple explanation for differing rates of evolution and apparent discrepancies in fossil records.

Unless of course you are emotionally wrapped up in the supernatural and pseudo-science, in which case you'll look for an explanation involving some sort of intelligent, divine force.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Ali G on evolution and creationism (and various other issues).

[YOUTUBE]FjKMhtyI3L8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Chief]

Many metaphysicians (or mystics or whatever) also talk of devolution as well. Ever wondered what the root cause of Jews / Muslims not eating pork is?

Yes - they never learned to cook it properly and it "looks" like a dirty animal. Plus it is a good tactic of the dictator to make up random rules and claim special, divine knowledge of their origin which mere mortals could never understand and should just shut up and not ask questions.

The Chinese love the stuff. So do I. In fact I had bacon and eggs about two hours ago.

 

[evo]

The Chinese love the stuff. So do I. In fact I had bacon and eggs about two hours ago.

Believing that there is someone watching your every move is ludicrous enough, but to think they he would give a ferk what one had for breakfast is borderline insane.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Hitchens explained the pork situation perfectly in God is not Great.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Yes - they never learned to cook it properly and it "looks" like a dirty animal. Plus it is a good tactic of the dictator to make up random rules and claim special, divine knowledge of their origin which mere mortals could never understand and should just shut up and not ask questions.

The Chinese love the stuff. So do I. In fact I had bacon and eggs about two hours ago.

That is sigworthy. (it may appear that I am sucking up to chief, but this is a genuinely funny line).

 

[evo]

Hitchens explained the pork situation perfectly in God is not Great.

I just finished 'letter to a young contrarian.'

This is a good-un, in my view:

In order to be absolutely honest, I should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the generalised agnosticism of our culture. I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. .... I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case. Why do I say that? Well, there may be people who wish to live their lives under a cradle-to-grave divine supervision; a permanent surveillance and monitoring. But I cannot imagine anything more horrible or grotesque.(p. 55)

 

[JavaBlue]

So even though I 'believe' in the primacy of consciousness over the primacy of matter, and consider that the rapid tempo changes following extended stasis / minor change observed within species are aided by what I would term 'downward causation' at a sub (or rather non!)-atomic level, then I am not a 'creationist'?

I reckon some evolutionist fundies will disagree vehemently!

Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by 'downward causation.' I would suggest that if you are saying 'rapid tempo changes' are 'aided'(caused? affected?) by what is happening at a sub-atomic level, then this is 'upward causation' or perhaps what is more commonly known as reductionism. If you were to say 'rapid tempo changes'affected' (or had some causal effect on) matter at the sub-atomic level (or at a less complex level) to behave differently then you would more accurately describing 'downward causation'. But I await your expanation.

I'm guessing that when you say 'rapid tempo changes' you mean speciation over a (relative) short (geological) timescale.

Personally I think you've just latched on to this term without really understanding it (probably because of its implications of a creative force or god) and given it some new age queakery (a new word - combining 'quackery' and 'tweak'- I coined for you). Please be suitable flattered.

I never use punctuated equilibrium as "proof" of anything other than an example of extended stasis within the fossil record.

Gradualists have done it relatively recently with the term "punctuated equilibrium" in order to explain clear evidence of stasis in the fossil record

Please explain how 'punctuated equilibrium' is "proof", 'clear evidence,' or an 'example' of 'extended stasis'? Extended stasis as applied to speciation is a period of inacticity - little change - while 'punctuated equilibrium' - or puntuated stasis if you want - is a period of increased activity (or [relatively] quicker change). I think you don't know what you're talking about.

I feel the need to keep reminding people that species (not sub-species) arrive not in a gradual manner in the fossil record, but rather appear suddenly.

I think you've fixated on the word 'suddenly' a bit too much. Here's Gould explaining how people have misunderstood punctuated equilibrium:

"Most of our paleontological colleagues (and new age queakers) missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales."

Out of interest, are you disputing Gould and Eldredge's observations??

THey probably observed something but their conclusion are mostly either seen as nothing new or disputed. Even Gould was difficult to nail down on the subject due to his constant flip flopping.

There is a perpetual misconception that gradualism works linearly, slowly morphing into something better.

I don't think that anyone thinks that "gradualism morphs into something better" - slowly or otherwise.

Gould (remembering he is a Darwinist!)

Yes he was a Darwinist but I suspect he liked the idea of there being Gouldists after he revolutionised evolution. Sorry but no banana for Stephen.

This is why Gould and Eldridge had to come up with the term "punctuated equilibrium", because phyletic gradualism, Darwinism in its purest form, has been evidenced to be incorrect.

I think you'll find that Gould also came up with the term 'phyletic gradualism' as well, in effect, as Dawkins said, creating his own straw man. What that means is Gould basically came up with two opposing theories, one of which he tried incorrectly to tie to Darwin. Here's Darwin:

"Many species, once formed, never undergo any further change ... and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."

"it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life... but when this adaptation had once been effected ... a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms"

What the "impulse" is for the rapid change in species is the source of much conjecture.

Perhaps you could explain or even list the different 'impulses' that are much conjectured about. I'll name one (altho I wouldn't descibe it as an impulse) - evolution.

I'm not arguing against any science. I am citing the science!

Distorting science for your own new age agenda.

 

[evo]

I think you've fixated on the word 'suddenly' a bit too much. Here's Gould explaining how people have misunderstood punctuated equilibrium:

"Most of our paleontological colleagues (and new age queakers) missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales."



.

Indeed.

My understanding of it is that "suddenly" is a relative term. They are still talking 10's or 100,000s of years.

 

[JavaBlue]

Indeed.

My understanding of it is that "suddenly" is a relative term. They are still talking 10's or 100,000s of years.

!0,000 years would be extremely sudden.

 

[Contra Mundum]

This cannot be dinkum can it??????

 

[Contra Mundum]

I just finished 'letter to a young contrarian.'

This is a good-un, in my view:

In order to be absolutely honest, I should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the generalised agnosticism of our culture. I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. .... I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case. Why do I say that? Well, there may be people who wish to live their lives under a cradle-to-grave divine supervision; a permanent surveillance and monitoring. But I cannot imagine anything more horrible or grotesque.(p. 55)

You say all sorts of funny things when your pissed

 

[evo]

You say all sorts of funny things when your pissed

He makes mores sense drunk than I do sober(except when he talks politics)...


George Orwell said that the prime responsibility lay in being able to tell people what they did not wish to hear. John Stuart Mill (who by a nice chance was Bertrand Russell's godfather) said that even if all were agreed on an essential proposition it would be essential to give an ear to the one person who did not, lest people forget how to justify their original agreement. Karl Marx, asked to give his favourite epigram, offered de omnibus disputandum ("everything must be doubted")

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

This cannot be dinkum can it??????

That is awesome.

Eve and a dinosaur.

This is from the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Set up by an Australian, Ken Ham.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

 

[The rabbi]

That is awesome.




This is from the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Set up by an Australian, Ken Ham.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

Can't we just consider Mr. Ham a Kiwi and spare us the indignity?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Can't we just consider Mr. Ham a Kiwi and spare us the indignity?

Sounds good to me. They can also have Russel Crowe back, he is a complete tool.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

I still wonder why, if we've evolved, people who have faith live longer than those who don't. What possible evolutionary reason would there be for that?

Isn't the logical thing to do, to have faith? If it makes you live longer, happier and healthier, recover quicker from illness and injury - wouldn't anyone who sees themselves as logical and reasonable, want to have faith simply for the health benefits?

 

[Niximus]

I still wonder why, if we've evolved, people who have faith live longer than those who don't. What possible evolutionary reason would there be for that?

Isn't the logical thing to do, to have faith? If it makes you live longer, happier and healthier, recover quicker from illness and injury - wouldn't anyone who sees themselves as logical and reasonable, want to have faith simply for the health benefits?

If you believe 2+2=3 you will live forever, do you believe?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

If you believe 2+2=3 you will live forever, do you believe?

But there is scientific and empirical evidence (which I've posted in this thread) that actually proves that people with faith live longer and healthier, and recover quicker than those who don't.

I'm not saying its proof that their faith is well-placed, but the faith itself has positive effects on the human body. Why would we have evolved that response to faith?

 

[Niximus]

But there is scientific and empirical evidence (which I've posted in this thread) that actually proves that people with faith live longer and healthier, and recover quicker than those who don't.

I'm not saying its proof that their faith is well-placed, but the faith itself has positive effects on the human body. Why would we have evolved that response to faith?

Look up placebo

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Look up placebo

Possibly, but its very effective. Isn't it odd though that our bodies have evolved to allow faith to have a healing effect? Whether its faith in a placebo medicine, or faith of god - the health links are well established. Why would our bodies react that way to faith?

 

[TheBloods]

That's not evolution. The mind has always been able to respond to heal the body where possible. Studies showing longer life for the religious are not conclusive and also can reflect lifestyle choices, which again is not evolution.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

That's not evolution. The mind has always been able to respond to heal the body where possible. Studies showing longer life for the religious are not conclusive and also can reflect lifestyle choices, which again is not evolution.

Studies regarding faith's role in healing have conclusively shown that people who have faith in a higher power heal quicker. It was in TIME a couple months back, I posted links in this thread earlier.

I just find it curious is all.