[W:926]The central evolution problem

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

So you know what a hasty generalization is, Tim the plumber?

If sharing some exchange from the internet is what you want to do and the only others you can do it with are your cats you have a problem of social isolation.

I would be surprised if you did not suffer from this as your ability to hold onto the real world, to take into account the ideas of others, seems to be minimal.

There is help out there for you. You can get better at such things.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

If sharing some exchange from the internet is what you want to do and the only others you can do it with are your cats you have a problem of social isolation.

I would be surprised if you did not suffer from this as your ability to hold onto the real world, to take into account the ideas of others, seems to be minimal.

There is help out there for you. You can get better at such things.

Note the subject of your posts.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Evolution is true because the only constant in life is change. And when there is change, Nature gets to pick & choose the best results.

Hear, hear!

"Panta Rhei"
(All Things Flow)
-- Heraclitus 500BC

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

G4N's thing is not the standard 'I.D.', but the woo that everything has an innate intelligence,

Many great scientists and philosophers have believed in universal intelligence. Calling something "woo" is not a logical argument.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: The central evolution problem

Many great scientists and philosophers have believed in universal intelligence. Calling something "woo" is not a logical argument.

There is a difference between having a faith as a scientists, and then pushing the concepts and assumptions of your faith onto your scientific work. The great scientists compartmentalize their faith and their work. Of they don't have a model of why it would work that way, and if they can't base predictions on that, then it's woo. The fact that you mix that up shows a strong misunderstanding of how science works. That illegitimizes your claims

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

There is a difference between having a faith as a scientists, and then pushing the concepts and assumptions of your faith onto your scientific work. The great scientists compartmentalize their faith and their work. Of they don't have a model of why it would work that way, and if they can't base predictions on that, then it's woo. The fact that you mix that up shows a strong misunderstanding of how science works. That illegitimizes your claims

Yes, the difference is between dogmatic adherence to a 400-year-old materialist assumption that has been exploded by quantum physics and bringing an open mind to your work. Only you are talking about faith. G4B is talking about the direction in which honest undogmatic science points.

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

Evidence that a theory is wrong? You sound like a fundamentalist God theorist in full stride.
I live with two cats, plumber. Of course evolution takes place in the natural world.
That evolution is the result of chance and chance alone is impossible. Do you understand? Impossible.
Evolution takes plave within a natural order.
Without that natural order evolution would not take place.
Order implies design.
Design implies intelligence.
Now put that in your pipe and smoke it, in a hammock, on the Riviera, on holiday.

Oder doenst imply design. Stop your pathetic play on words arguements

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

Here I would tell you what you can do with your liar baton. But I think you can figure it out for yourself.
Please annoy some other member today with your "simple" (your word) world view.
It's Sunday.
No Dogma Allowed.

If no dogma is allowed then why are you postijng your dogmatic lies??

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

The sign reads NO DOGMA ALLOWED

Can Chew Reed?

And keep looking at that "liar" baton in your hand. Its use will suggest itself soon enough, I have no doubt.

Making up rules that dont exist then not following them yourself is not exactly going to help your already failed cause is it?

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Oder doenst imply design. Stop your pathetic play on words arguements

Order is design. Therefore, order implies design. Or do you have an argument to the contrary. An argument, mind you.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

If no dogma is allowed then why are you postijng your dogmatic lies??

"Dogmatic lies"? Point out the dogma. Then point out its falsehood. Or else go see if there's any beer in the fridge.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Making up rules that dont exist then not following them yourself is not exactly going to help your already failed cause is it?

Put up or you know what. First write a coherent sentence in which you show an understanding of my argument. Then in a second sentence provide a counterargument. Your bald assertions don't cut the mustard.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

There is a difference between having a faith as a scientists, and then pushing the concepts and assumptions of your faith onto your scientific work. The great scientists compartmentalize their faith and their work. Of they don't have a model of why it would work that way, and if they can't base predictions on that, then it's woo. The fact that you mix that up shows a strong misunderstanding of how science works. That illegitimizes your claims

No, you misunderstand how "science works." You think there is a necessary connection between the scientific method and the philosophy of materialism. There isn't.

Denying there is intelligence in nature distorts all your perceptions, and makes biological science more difficult.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

Yes, the difference is between dogmatic adherence to a 400-year-old materialist assumption that has been exploded by quantum physics and bringing an open mind to your work. Only you are talking about faith. G4B is talking about the direction in which honest undogmatic science points.

I think materialism only became popular among biologists in the 20th century. Before that, I think a lot of biologists were vitalists. It was the modern synthesis that caused materialism to become widely accepted.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

No, you misunderstand how "science works." You think there is a necessary connection between the scientific method and the philosophy of materialism. There isn't.

Denying there is intelligence in nature distorts all your perceptions, and makes biological science more difficult.

First it has to be proven that there is intelligence in nature otherwise there is nothing to deny.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

I think materialism only became popular among biologists in the 20th century. Before that, I think a lot of biologists were vitalists. It was the modern synthesis that caused materialism to become widely accepted.

You mean that science advanced.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: The central evolution problem

No, you misunderstand how "science works." You think there is a necessary connection between the scientific method and the philosophy of materialism. There isn't.

Denying there is intelligence in nature distorts all your perceptions, and makes biological science more difficult.

You seem to be mirroring vairous arguments used against you back to the person who made them to begin with. That is not very convincing, and your statement about 'the philosophy of materialism' is a straw man.

You also have not presented what is known as 'evidence' or even a workable model that can be tested. That sort of negates your claims here.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

Another reason to be skeptical of neo-Darwinism:

Our species is the only one capable of advanced mathematics, complex technology, music and art. The primates we evolved from could count up to three.

Your evolution by chance and selection theory says the human abilities for advanced mathematics, etc., evolved long before it would ever be used.

A very dramatic difference in intellectual and creative ability occurred when homo sapiens appeared. They still had a primitive hunting and gathering lifestyle. They didn't even have agriculture until about 10,000 years ago. And no advanced technology until very recently.

So why did natural selection create abilities that would not be used until about a million years later?

This is not the only problem with neo-Darwinism. There are many. But this problem is very obvious. Convoluted fairy tales have been made up to explain it, but there is no logical explanation.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

Another reason to be skeptical of neo-Darwinism:

Our species is the only one capable of advanced mathematics, complex technology, music and art. The primates we evolved from could count up to three.

Your evolution by chance and selection theory says the human abilities for advanced mathematics, etc., evolved long before it would ever be used.

A very dramatic difference in intellectual and creative ability occurred when homo sapiens appeared. They still had a primitive hunting and gathering lifestyle. They didn't even have agriculture until about 10,000 years ago. And no advanced technology until very recently.

So why did natural selection create abilities that would not be used until about a million years later?

This is not the only problem with neo-Darwinism. There are many. But this problem is very obvious. Convoluted fairy tales have been made up to explain it, but there is no logical explanation.

Where does the theory say that?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

You seem to be mirroring vairous arguments used against you back to the person who made them to begin with. That is not very convincing, and your statement about 'the philosophy of materialism' is a straw man.

You also have not presented what is known as 'evidence' or even a workable model that can be tested. That sort of negates your claims here.

We have no idea what he is proposing. Some vague natural intelligence. Still no evidence forthcoming.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

Where does the theory say that?

Well we know those abilities were already present in the early homo sapiens, and we know they did not use their ability for advanced mathematics, etc. According to the neo-Darwinist theory, traits evolve because accidental genetic changes are selected from. You should know all this without my explaining it.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

Well we know those abilities were already present in the early homo sapiens, and we know they did not use their ability for advanced mathematics, etc. According to the neo-Darwinist theory, traits evolve because accidental genetic changes are selected from. You should know all this without my explaining it.

Prove that they had that ability. You seem to believe that saying something makes it true. Post some links please.

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/e...atical-ability-three-evolutionary-hypotheses/


Chimpanzees are capable of various forms of numerical competence, including some correspondence constructions (that is, comparing two collections of elements) for low quantities (Premack, 1976; Davis and Perusse, 1988). Most likely, these numerical abilities also existed in pre-historic man. Homo sapiens antecessors may have been capable of using correspondence constructions in some social activities, such as food sharing. It has been proposed that Homo habilis (ancestor of Homo erectus, living about 2.3 million to 1.4 million years ago) needed to use correspondence constructions when butchering large animal carcasses (Parker and Gibson, 1979). Distributing pieces of a divided whole (e.g., prey) into equal parts required the ability to construct one-to-one correspondences. Probably, Paleolithic man was able to match the number of objects in different groups and, eventually, the number of objects in a collection with the number of items in some external cue system, e.g., fingers or pebbles (incidentally, calculus means pebbles).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912036/

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

Prehistoric humans had the same kind of intelligence we have. They did not use most of it. This is an obvious fact.

Primitive hunting/gathering people today have the same kind of intelligence we have. They do not use it. This is obvious.

The human ability for advanced mathematics did not evolve recently, and it did not evolve only in Europeans.

At the same time as technology was advancing in Europe, tribal people in Africa had only the simplest arithmetic. Are you daring to say those Africans were less evolved than the Europeans? If you dare to say that you are not only an extreme racist, you are absolutely wrong.

Why did those tribal Africans have the ability to do calculus? Why did it evolve in people whose ancestors had absolutely no need of it, or of anything similar?

All you can do is find ridiculous fairy tales to explain it.

Another example is the ability to read and write. Until quite recently, most people were illiterate. Yet everyone had the ability to learn to read and write. How did natural selection create this ability, when almost no one used it?

 

[blarg]

Re: The central evolution problem

Prehistoric humans had the same kind of intelligence we have. They did not use most of it. This is an obvious fact.

Primitive hunting/gathering people today have the same kind of intelligence we have. They do not use it. This is obvious.

The human ability for advanced mathematics did not evolve recently, and it did not evolve only in Europeans.

At the same time as technology was advancing in Europe, tribal people in Africa had only the simplest arithmetic. Are you daring to say those Africans were less evolved than the Europeans? If you dare to say that you are not only an extreme racist, you are absolutely wrong.

Why did those tribal Africans have the ability to do calculus? Why did it evolve in people whose ancestors had absolutely no need of it, or of anything similar?

All you can do is find ridiculous fairy tales to explain it.

Another example is the ability to read and write. Until quite recently, most people were illiterate. Yet everyone had the ability to learn to read and write. How did natural selection create this ability, when almost no one used it?

you could probably learn to hunt make tools and shelter with your hands and whatever you can find in nature even if you cant now i think logic and reasoning can be used in different ways that would explain why the traits would be selected for even before all the applications for it weer possible

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

Order is design. Therefore, order implies design. Or do you have an argument to the contrary. An argument, mind you.

There you go playing with definitions and coming to conclusions that aren't rue
Order doesn't imply design