Theory of Evolution

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by bearer_of_truth, Sep 9, 2016.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Repetitive, I know, but it's important to hammer this point a little:

    "Only a theory" is not a valid objection to any scientific idea. Everything that's interesting in science is a "theory". If you want, you can get all technical about it and only call something a "Theory" with a capital "T" when it is supported by overwhelming evidence - but even that high hurdle is one that the Theory of Evolution clears with ease.

    Theories are what makes science different from stamp collecting.

    "Look! There's frog! Look, there's another frog! Look, there's a third frog! Oh look, I saw another frog!" Boring stamp collecting.
    "All frogs grow from tadpoles". Now you're talking about a theory, and you're suggesting a kind of regularity about nature. That's what science does.

    "Look! There's a gene. Ooh, another gene! Wow, it's a third gene!" Boring stamp collecting.
    "Genes determine what an animal looks like and how it acts." Now you have a theory.

    What use is the theory of evolution to biology and genetics? No use, except that without it neither field of study makes any sense at all.

    It's like asking what the theory of gravity has to do with astrophysics.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mysticlling Registered Member

    Quantum Babble; I completely agree. Though I’m not sure whether Hameroff or Deepak does the best job.

    Now that I’ve had time to collect my thoughts I know what I should have said right from the beginning.

    Over the last few decades, like us all, I have been trying to work out what the hell reality is all about or what is the meaning of life etc..

    How I have done this is primarily via a process of constantly looking for contradiction. For many years now a contradiction to my ‘model’ instantly sticks out like dogs balls. When on rare occasions I see a contradiction it’s usually a misinterpretation or sometimes I may have to leave it on the mantel piece until it fits in or a possible change to the model.

    A prerequisite to being able to do this concerns non attachment. From an early age I saw this & constantly tested myself in everyday situations ie to notice when I’m in emotional pain that is caused by something ‘outside’ of me. In the end this come down to not being attached to ones thoughts.

    This ‘model’ ‘coincidently’ is the same as basic eastern philosophy.

    What I look for in a scientist is this ‘Budda’ nature; a good examples is Rodger Penrose. As soon as I sense a degree of anger it tells me that that person cannot think properly or is not a true scientist.

    At the end of the day we don’t use (in simple terms) a maths formula to decide whether to turn right or left.

    So either you have the above abilities or you use maths, double blind, and random stuff to keep you from fooling your selves.

    I imagine that the next scientific paradigm will be able to ‘prove’ (to make physical) what at present is only ‘known’ by a small portion of the population.

    The ultimate technology will be the proof of ‘Karma’ note: Psychopaths wear seat belts.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
    Especially with regard to that last sentence.
    A) It appears to presuppose that your "sensing" of that anger is infallible.
    B) It also apparently presupposes that there's no other valid reason for that anger (if genuine).
    (But I did find the "cannot think properly"/ "not a true scientist" highly amusing giving the amount of pure woo you're espoused in this thread: i.e. which is your excuse?)

    Uh, and...?

    What "above abilities" are you talking about?

    Um, can you be more explicit what it is (exactly) that's "known" by this small portion?

    Since karma is - demonstrably (let alone rigorously/ scientifically) - bullsh*t I doubt it.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    It seems he is looking for the elusive 'beauty'.

    But rather than looking for it in the science, he's looking for it in the scientist.
  8. Mysticlling Registered Member

    It shows that I have problems with my communication skills. I'll have to give this to somebody not as intelligent I'm sure they will know what I mean.
  9. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    It's perfectly fine for a scientist to be a human being. They justifiably get angered when science issues are misrepresented to the public. Detachment from one's anger is psychopathic. Don't forget Buddhism was used to help Japanese soldiers detach their feelings from the atrocities they were ordered to commit, including Kamikaze pilots and Kaiten (suicide torpedo pilots).
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    If you recognise that you have "problems with [your] communication skills" don't you think it behoves you to improve them rather than seek a "less intelligent" respondent?
    "Oh dear, it appears that I'm a crap driver - I'll look for a more lenient examiner so I can pass the test".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    But... that's ME.
  12. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    And scientists, like other academics, are often really stupid. I don't mean to denigrate science as a whole, but being good at science does not mean being smart at everything, nor being morally good.
  13. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Of course.
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    I was addressing your query about Mysticlling's motives.
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    I know.
    What I meant was that I'm the "beautiful scientist".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    My bad. Of course you are.
  17. pluto2 Registered Senior Member

    If the Christian God really exists then he must be an evil bastard.

    Why the hell would your God allow there to be so much pain and suffering right here on Earth?

    Innocent people and animals suffer here for no reason.

    If all of this is the work of some God then he must be very evil for allowing totally innocent people and totally innocent animals to suffer like that.

    While I'm not supporting the theory of evolution because I think the theory of evolution is pseudoscience or at best a very incomplete theory, I think that Creationism or Christianity or any variation thereof is simply wrong and not compatible with the evidence we have.

    If your God was really Omni-loving and Omni-capable, then he wouldn't make things such as Hell, natural disasters which hurt many people, diseases, disabilities, torture, animals being eaten by other animals and many other things which cause great suffering to innocent people and animals alike.

    To me it doesn't follow that because the world is so magnificent and complex that it had to have a creator.

    By this same logic, God has to be even more powerful and complex and would have to have a creator.

    Complexity in itself in no way is proof or evidence of a god creator. It is only evidence that the Universe is very complex by our standards.

    Supposedly man after he dies lives on in gods eternal heaven in eternal happiness.

    But if this is true, why did he create sin and punishment on Earth? Or even yet why did he create Hell?

    Why not create a world with men that are motivated to be all caring and loving beings, just like him, with no desire to be selfish, greedy and mean? Or better yet, why not send everyone to Heaven immediately without allowing incredible pain and suffering here on Earth?

    Religious fanatics claim that humans have chosen to be evil because of their 'free will'. But this is totally questionable because to me, 'free will' does no imply or require evil conduct.

    free will n. 1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will. 2. The power, attributed especially to human beings, of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or
    divine will.

    A good benevolent god could have created man as a loving caring creature with free will but without any desire or ability to commit evil.

    God has apparently already created other limitations on man's 'free will'. He created hunger pains to force man to eat and drink. Why?

    He created suffocation panic to force man to breathe? And a powerful sex drive to
    force man to procreate? (Frequently in excess of mans ability to feed and care for his creations!

    Why create greed and selfishness which encourages man to steel, lie, subjugate, manipulate, abuse and even kill other human beings?

    This is supposedly to keep man in line and force him to follow god's wishes and commands.

    But in my opinion this is a characteristic of a dictator and slave master not the characteristics of an all loving and caring god.

    Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Wars, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and serious body malfunctions?

    Why does God permit millions of both young and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?

    There is a parasitic worm in West Africa that bores through the eyes of children and causes total blindness for the rest of their lives.

    So this is the work of an all caring and loving god???

    Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children" to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.?

    Why are some born idiots and others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others dirt poor?

    Or why are his human creations designed to deteriorate into a miserable and devastating old age?

    Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks, jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, poisonous snakes, stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.?

    Why did this caring benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully kill and eat other animals to survive?

    World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths.

    World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more millions maimed for life.

    The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 250,000 men, women and children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally innocent children!

    There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th. and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and totally innocent children.

    The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and innocent children indiscriminately.

    Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and malnutrition.

    These afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of all religious persuasions.

    Meanwhile MAN, and NOT God, has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling, purify water, world wide electronic communication, power and transportation systems including flying through the air.

    Man has also developed defenses and cures for hundreds of serious diseases.

    Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and torturing tyrant.

    If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think he will let us enjoy peace and happiness eternally in his Heaven after death? And why does he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead parents, siblings and friends?

    If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an all-caring and loving god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer".

    The objective evidence is that, if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about the welfare of the creatures on Earth.

    The objective evidence is that no God created man but quite the opposite; that man created Gods!
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2016
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Without actually advocating for any "logic of God",
    it is presumptuous to suppose we know what "his" plan might be.

    My learnings from childhood suggest that God's erstwhile intent is not to wet-nurse us and kiss our boo-boos.

    The myth goes that he created us, and gave us free will to act. Then he set us free to make a world as we saw fit. Like any lab scientist, it would defeat the purpose to step into one's creation and tinker with it once it's up and running.

    I don't believe in God, but even I can follow the internal logic of why God would let his creations suffer.
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Again, while not a believer, I can still spot a logical fallacy. This is the fallacy of wishful thinking.

    "This should not be the case" is not a valid argument for "This is not true."
  20. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    I've already pointed out the fallacy of that, it doesn't explain suffering caused by factors out of our control, like natural disasters. The evidence is against a conception of God that cares about human well being.
  21. Mysticlling Registered Member

    My conclusions from you guys: You don’t understand the difference between science & scientism.

    Science is fundamentally a philosophy & we shouldn’t forget that.
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Nor do you, apparently.

    And, yet "even"[1] in philosophy arguments are expected to be supported: in philosophy the support comes from known premises[3] (and rational extrapolation). In science it comes from testable evidence.
    So far (despite claims that you could do so) you've provided neither.

    1 I put this in scare quotes because some people think philosophy is empty-headed bullsh*t[2] , whereas educated people don't.
    2 Something you apparently assume...
    3 Okay, sometimes they'll go for "what if...?".
  23. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    I'm kind of a fan of scientism. If you can't show you're correct with empirical evidence, why should anyone believe it?

Share This Page