[Terez]

Gem Windcaster, on 23 January 2010 - 02:41 AM, said:

Or maybe, the difference between you and me is that I recognize the fact that my perception of reality is vague, while you refuse to see it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. I WILL TRY THIS ONE MORE TIME. Everyone in this thread understands that certain things about reality are vague. What makes your perception of reality more vague than ours is that you do not recognize that you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for accusing any of us of being ignorant of the philosophy of subjectivity and its relevance to the subject at hand.

Gem said:

My faith is really a solid hang-up for you guys, isn't it?

No. Only for you.

Gem said:

if it was proven to my mind beyond doubt that the theory of evolution is true

Now you are contradicting yourself. You've already said several times in the thread that you don't believe there is such a thing as proof. Why would you ask anyone to prove the theory of evolution 'beyond doubt' when you know that it's an utterly freaking ridiculous proposition?

Gem said:

it wouldn't change my faith one bit

You've said that a billion times too, but that doesn't mean that your religion isn't a motivation for your problems with the theory of evolution.

Gem said:

I would never try to rank scientific theories.

Then why are you here? We have already established that no one on this thread is ignorant of subjectivity; your continued harping on the point is insulting in the extreme.

Gem said:

Thirdly, I think I am a bad representative of absolutes - because I would never say never about anything.

Except for saying thinks like there is no such thing as proof, right?

Gem said:

I don't know what you mean when you say I am on the side of the literalist fundies. Care to elaborate?

You say you don't give a rat's ass about how the world came to be, yet here you are, arguing against the theory of evolution as if it is some kind of conspiracy theory scam. Only religious people do that.

Gem said:

It's wonderful that you guys have something to hold on to, it can certainly be comforting.

Just because the theory of evolution contradicts certain things in certain religious texts does not mean that it is an alternative source of comfort for humanity. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with comfort whatsoever.

Gem said:

Well fair enough, you agree with me, but I'm not so sure it is irrelevant. But okay, lets move on from that then.

Really? Are you serious? Are you going to stop harping on this point? Because it is pretty much the only contribution that you have made to this thread, and I struggle to imagine what else you would even argue about.

Gem said:

I don't think I'll be able to make you see anything. It's your choice, and it always will be.

This is an empty-headed, bullshit statement that means nothing. You can do better than that.

Gem said:

As for evidence, I'd like to start discussing the actual evidence - is there some way we could go there? I know I am not as educated on the subject as you guys, but if we could take it one step at a time, maybe we could do it.

Why? We are not going to prove or disprove evolution in this thread. The science world knows that the theory of evolution is valid, and they use it to help them make improvements to our way of life, and that is all that matters so far as most of us are concerned. If you want to join the bandwagon of people who are trying to fight the teaching of evolution in schools etc. (which I doubt), then there would be something to discuss, but otherwise, there is nothing really to discuss. You don't think the theory of evolution is valid, which is odd, but since you don't think ANY scientific theory is valid (since you don't try to rank them, and you claim religion is not involved, then I have no choice to assume that your attitude to the theory of evolution is also applied to every scientific theory), then we can just discount you as an oddball and move on to other subjects, since there is obviously no point in discussing the evidence for the theory with you.

[HoosierDaddy]

Quote

Gem said:As for evidence, I'd like to start discussing the actual evidence - is there some way we could go there? I know I am not as educated on the subject as you guys, but if we could take it one step at a time, maybe we could do it.

Quote

Adjutant Stormy said:
Dear Gem,

The reason your standard of proof is so different is because you haven't agreed to play the game. The science game, in which we generate knowledge about the world around us through repeated collection of evidence with agreed upon standards. Otherwise, one collection of evidence would be incomparable to another, one man's 'valid theory' would be another's 'total hocus pocus'.
That's a fair assessment, actually. I generally like to make up the rules as I go, just to see what happens. I do tend to follow rules when I see fit, not because society says I should. But I'm not picking sides here, I'm not making a black or white stand. And I love science. I think I've said as much before.

Until you agree to abide by the rules of scientific evidence, which is "proof", and stop "making them (rules) up as you go" there can be no equal discussion on "proof." Only more statements by you that what scientific evidence that is presented here as "proof" of evolution is not "proof."

Plenty of examples have been given, and disregarded for various reasons. If I recall correctly, your burden of proof, is personal observation of evolution. When presented with such, (I'm thinking of the fish evolution here), you found that evidence lacking, if I remember correctly.

What would constitute "proof" to the Theory of Evolution to you, Gem?

[Morgoth]

I believe she's previously stated that it would take a film recording of evolution taking place over aeons to convince her, which sort of shows the absurdity of arguing in this thread at all.

[stone monkey]

Which she knows is impossible, so presumably she also wants film of the entire history of the continents drifting into place or each fusion reaction in every star or every single quantum interaction in the history of the universe or each and every chemical interaction in every single living thing that has ever existed or every single gravitational interaction... the list is endless. What she absolutely does not want is the evidence that's available to us because that disagrees with what she wants to believe.

[Malaclypse]

What is the Creationist explanation for Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, etc?
Let's say for the sake of argument that our dating methods are rubbish - it is nonetheless clear by way of stratigraphy (ie. a Neandertal occupation layer lies beneath an anatomically modern human occupation layer, for example) that hominids existed prior to humans, made tools, conducted organized hunts, cared for one another, etc. - in short, they demonstrated intelligence. I once wrote a paper about the Middle Palaeolithic, specifically regarding faunal remains that exhibited both hyaena gnawing and hominid cut-marks, the question being who was the primary bone-collecter - did hyeanas make the kill and the hominids of the time scavenge what was left or was it the other way around? I ultimately concluded that it didn't really matter in terms of the organizational capacity of the hominids of the time because if they were able to compete with Ice-Age hyaenas (50% larger than the modern spotted hyaena) in any way whatsoever, they had to be very organized.

edit: Hyaenas are capable of digesting bone, which is genuinely remarkable. The hominids of the time, absent some compelling deterrant, would have been a light snack to these bastards.

I don't think that Creation and Evolution are necessarily mutually exclusive concepts, btw, and evolution is poorly understood even by Ph.D's in relevant fields.

It's the thoery of 'the survival of the minimally fit' - survive to sexual maturity, secure a mate and you have a decent chance of being represented in the next iteration of the gene pool. Gradualism is wrong, modern Anthroplogy discarded the idea long ago (google Lamarckism). Punctuated equilibrium is the name of the game, ie., rapid change arising from very small groups being isolated and therefore mutations spread rapidly through the gene pool - inbreeding essentially. Sometimes, those mutations are adaptive and so those who have inherited such traits thrive and are rewarded by getting laid more often and producing more offspring, and so on.

I once read a paper asserting that hominids developed thicker tooth enamel through an evolutionary process, as an adaptation to a reliance on the processing of seeds but how could this be expressed in a 'survival of the minimally fit' paradigm? It can't - it's gradualism - for some reason the idea of people slowly changing to be more suited to their environment remains compelling but it's rubbish. Also, I harangued one of my professors after he presented a map showing skin colour variations in Africa and the middle East correlated with UV ratings - it fits together neatly but has no basis in evolution. The opposing argument has to do with not only survival but longevity in order to support one's offspring but this is bollocks in the context of small-scale societies, in which the next generation would be nurtured by the entire tribe even in the absence of the parents. That's an assertion but I'm willing to defend it at length if anyone chooses to disagree.

This post has been edited by Malaclypse: 23 January 2010 - 06:32 PM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

I'd like to introduce, if I may, a standard of disproof for Evolution.

Assertion: If Evolution were accurate (true), here exists evidence that confirms it.
Equivalently: If evidence exists that contradicts it, Evolution must be false.

So what we're looking for is a population or species that proceeds generationally in developing traits that steeply diminish their fitness.

-------------------

But to Mal's point, the things that appear to be gradualism are actually excellent examples of evolution. And it's not necessarily a theory of the 'minimally fit.' The minimally fit survive, but the may not prosper- in short, the man who was able to eat a wider variety of seed forage was better fed, and had both the means and energy to forage and hunt more extensively than his less fit neighbors- sustaining a larger family whose phenotype would come to dominance after many generational iterations.

As to the UV thing, have you ever been sexually attracted to blistering skin? I'd say that that's enough of a benefit to fitness to rationalize it... haha.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Terez, on 23 January 2010 - 05:04 AM, said:

Gem said:

As for evidence, I'd like to start discussing the actual evidence - is there some way we could go there? I know I am not as educated on the subject as you guys, but if we could take it one step at a time, maybe we could do it.

Why? We are not going to prove or disprove evolution in this thread. The science world knows that the theory of evolution is valid, and they use it to help them make improvements to our way of life, and that is all that matters so far as most of us are concerned. If you want to join the bandwagon of people who are trying to fight the teaching of evolution in schools etc. (which I doubt), then there would be something to discuss, but otherwise, there is nothing really to discuss. You don't think the theory of evolution is valid, which is odd, but since you don't think ANY scientific theory is valid (since you don't try to rank them, and you claim religion is not involved, then I have no choice to assume that your attitude to the theory of evolution is also applied to every scientific theory), then we can just discount you as an oddball and move on to other subjects, since there is obviously no point in discussing the evidence for the theory with you.

Terez, you know better than this. Give it up. Gem is not arguing in good faith (pardon the pun), and she never has. A more worthwhile topic for debate would be whether she is genuinely this obtuse, or is a very talented and dedicated troll.

[Gem Windcaster]

Truth is nobody has tried to actually give me something besides 'proof' that are meant to go over my head completely. If people can't bother to actually show me something that is on my level, then what is the point of this thread? If you can't bother to go down into details, and actually make some effort to explain, then this thread is just about bashing the idiots that happen to believe something else than you do. Since people rather would call me a troll than to discuss with me with an open mind, then what is the point of this thread?

Actually, about proof, I've said that observation over the entire time evolution taking place would constitute as proof, but convincing me would maybe take less. I can't say for sure. I don't need proof of everything I believe in, I thought that was clear.

stone monkey, on 23 January 2010 - 01:42 PM, said:

Which she knows is impossible, so presumably she also wants film of the entire history of the continents drifting into place or each fusion reaction in every star or every single quantum interaction in the history of the universe or each and every chemical interaction in every single living thing that has ever existed or every single gravitational interaction... the list is endless. What she absolutely does not want is the evidence that's available to us because that disagrees with what she wants to believe.

That's real nice, SM, I am sure you assuming things about me will help you feel more comfortable.


I do think there are proof of species adjusting to their reality, to survive. I don't even discard every data that is connected to the theory of evolution. But the idea that everything evolving to something higher (or better) is something I can't agree on. How do we know it's not getting worse? How do we measure, for example, sentience or intelligence of something that lived millions of years ago?

Since there is so much of the theory of evolution I can't agree with, I can't really say it's proven or even valid. Because much of it doesn't make any sense.

I wish we could just stop focusing on me, and focus on the actual subject. People have been using their energy to come with new ways of telling me how stupid I am, and how religiously blind I am (which is the worst insult I've ever had thrown at me in my entire life), than actually discussing what we're here to discuss. I was assuming this wasn't just a bashing thread, you guys got the benefit of the doubt. Was I wrong to give you that?

Half of what you write is just giant assumptions about me, about how I think, instead of showing something of your knowledge, which I know you guys possess.

As much as I do think the theory of evolution is largely invalid, I always have in mind that certainly don't know everything, and I do think it has some solid points, my criticism is meant as an invite to show something of your own knowledge and insight.
Instead you've taken my participation as an attack and an insult to your entire world view.

Now, I've tried to move forward, but you still won't level with me, and I don't understand the reason for the existence of this thread at all. When you have pointed out what you think is proof, I've come with what I think is a valid criticism, and you don't accept it or even consider it, instead you mock me, telling me I am blinded by my own faith. Then you have the stomach to be upset when I say that maybe you guys are the ones being blinded by your faith. Serious mind fuck.

I don't give a crap about your difficulties having your world view challenged - my world view has been challenged my whole life - so booo fucking hoo if you are upset.

@Terez, I'll respond to your post at a later time.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 24 January 2010 - 07:16 PM

[Terez]

Gem said:

Terez, I'll respond to your post at a later time.

Don't bother.

Also, keep in mind that we're not upset because you're challenging our beliefs; we don't care about our beliefs nearly as much as you do. We're upset because you use underhanded argument tactics. It's frustrating because it seems like you do it on purpose, intending to obfuscate the issue as much as possible, but I suppose it's possible that you do it on accident.

Gem said:

...I do think the theory of evolution is largely invalid...

Since you're perfectly willing to say that you are ignorant on the subject, then why can't you admit that your religion is a motivation for your disbelief in the theory? Because there really is no other reason why a person who is almost completely ignorant of a scientific theory should challenge the veracity of said theory, when the scientific community has reached a widespread consensus about its validity.

This is why many people are reluctant to discuss evidence with you; it is obvious that you are predisposed to dismiss the theory because of your religion, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

Gem said:

Now, I've tried to move forward, but you still won't level with me

That is because you are still not being level with us. We've told you what the purpose of this thread is, and that your layman's non-understanding of the theory has pretty much nothing to do with it. The thread only exists because of the fact that Christians are trying to suppress knowledge of the theory, because it contradicts their beliefs. For whatever reason, you jumped on the bandwagon.

[Illuyankas]

Gem Windcaster, on 24 January 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

Truth is nobody has tried to actually give me something besides 'proof' that are meant to go over my head completely. If people can't bother to actually show me something that is on my level, then what is the point of this thread? If you can't bother to go down into details, and actually make some effort to explain, then this thread is just about bashing the idiots that happen to believe something else than you do. Since people rather would call me a troll than to discuss with me with an open mind, then what is the point of this thread?

Actually, about proof, I've said that observation over the entire time evolution taking place would constitute as proof, but convincing me would maybe take less. I can't say for sure. I don't need proof of everything I believe in, I thought that was clear.

People call you a troll because they have repeatedly described evolution to you at great length and at various levels of technical detail and you continually prove that you haven't read a thing. For example:

Gem Windcaster, on 24 January 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

I do think there are proof of species adjusting to their reality, to survive. I don't even discard every data that is connected to the theory of evolution. But the idea that everything evolving to something higher (or better) is something I can't agree on. How do we know it's not getting worse? How do we measure, for example, sentience or intelligence of something that lived millions of years ago?

This is an incorrect take on it. You've had it pointed out to you, shown to you, and flat out told to you that's it's wrong. It is not a purposeful direction to something 'better' or 'higher', it's random changes - LOTS of random changes over many generations, which for larger lifeforms with long gestation periods and breeding cycles is a long, LONG time - in the genome which are incredibly minor. Most of these do nothing. Some are harmful to the creature. A few make one thing slightly easier for it, this gives the creature a slight advantage over its competitors in the field, this makes it live longer and breed more, passing this advantage on to its offspring. These are also advantaged, live longer and breed more, until the majority of that species has the change. It's not a 'better' change because while it might make it easier for Creature A to thrive over Creature B in Enviroment 1, if Enviroment 1 changes or the creatures must move to Enviroment 2, Creature B might have an adaptation that is very poor for Enviroment 1 but gives it the edge in 2 over the more specialised Creature A. Sometimes it's a change that did nothing in 1 but effects live in 2, for example. There are fossils of sabertoothed tigers and pre-buffalo that as the fossils get younger and younger, the pre-buffalo that developed a slightly thicker ribcage survived the tigers and bred more than its fellows so the majority of pre-buffalo had thicker ribcages, then the sabertoothed tiger who developed larger fangs was able to eat the thicker-ribcaged pre-buffalo easier than its fellows and bred more so the majority of sabertoothed tigers had larger fangs. This became a vicious circle where the pre-buffalo that developed thicker and thicker ribcages survived better against the tigers who grew larger and larger fangs, to the point where the latest fossils of those species had massively overdeveloped fangs and ribcages that prevented them moving or eating as easily as their competitors, and they died out. Better has no meaning for evolution, it's all about what it more adapted for its enviroment. Worse for the situation a creature is in means they die sooner and without breeding as much. And as for sentience, tool use is a pretty good indicator.

Gem Windcaster, on 24 January 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

Since there is so much of the theory of evolution I can't agree with, I can't really say it's proven or even valid. Because much of it doesn't make any sense.

You disagree because you misunderstand. From the perspective of the people in the thread this misunderstanding appears to be willing. You don't tell us what parts of the things we've described and linked to you don't understand, in fact you don't mention them at all. We've linked proof. You've denied it by making your version of the word proof into 'if I haven't seen it, it doesn't exist'. We haven't seen tectonic plates move around as they don't do so fast enough to be seen, yet you believe in the validity of tectonic plate theory thanks to evidence like plate boundaries and earthquake prediction. We haven't seen stars change from birth to Main Sequence to red giant/white dwarf-hood because of the time scales involved, yet you believe in the validity of astronomy. If you don't trust the evidence for evolution then you must logically doubt the evidence for these as well.

Gem Windcaster, on 24 January 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

I wish we could just stop focusing on me, and focus on the actual subject. People have been using their energy to come with new ways of telling me how stupid I am, and how religiously blind I am (which is the worst insult I've ever had thrown at me in my entire life), than actually discussing what we're here to discuss. I was assuming this wasn't just a bashing thread, you guys got the benefit of the doubt. Was I wrong to give you that?

Half of what you write is just giant assumptions about me, about how I think, instead of showing something of your knowledge, which I know you guys possess.

As much as I do think the theory of evolution is largely invalid, I always have in mind that certainly don't know everything, and I do think it has some solid points, my criticism is meant as an invite to show something of your own knowledge and insight.
Instead you've taken my participation as an attack and an insult to your entire world view.

You aren't criticising it. You need to have a basic understanding of the theory to do so, and you've shown repeatedly that you have neither that understanding or a willingness to achieve it. Your religious bearings don't matter to me, your arguments alone prove this.

Gem Windcaster, on 24 January 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

Now, I've tried to move forward, but you still won't level with me, and I don't understand the reason for the existence of this thread at all. When you have pointed out what you think is proof, I've come with what I think is a valid criticism, and you don't accept it or even consider it, instead you mock me, telling me I am blinded by my own faith. Then you have the stomach to be upset when I say that maybe you guys are the ones being blinded by your faith. Serious mind fuck.

I don't give a crap about your difficulties having your world view challenged - my world view has been challenged my whole life - so booo fucking hoo if you are upset.

It's simple. It's not a valid criticism. We've shown how it isn't one, we've shown you what is wrong with it, and you've ignored it and kept on anyway. The blinded by your own faith stuff is completely irrelevant to the thread and I agree it's not necessary, but you're still ignoring what's in front of you for whatever reason you've chosen, religious or otherwise.

I'm not upset, I'm just tired. Tired of looking at your posts in this thread and seeing the same thing in every single one, from 2008 to now. Tired of seeing reams of information written by pretty much every single other person in the thread, written for you in answer to your claims, and the very next post making it crystal clear you haven't taken a word in. Tired of you harping on about how you're a free-thinking reactionary challenging the staid establishment and then saying either the blindingly obvious or incorrect information, again and again. I'm tired of your wilful ignorance, I'm tired of your snide insults. You need to make the effort to understand us and our information, we already have for you and yours and it isn't relevant to the thread. We get what you're saying. It's just not related to the subject at all.

So tired of this blank wall.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 24 January 2010 - 09:33 PM

[stone monkey]

Gem,

I'm only going off the evidence you've so amply provided. If you take the trouble to say the exactly the same sort of things as someone who absolutely does not want to hear anything about the subject that she might disagree with, I don't see why it's at all untoward that I draw that conclusion from your remarks...

Anyway, let's talk about evolution, shall we? What do you want to know?

Although I don't quite see the point. Every time in the past I (and others) have gone through this, your response has been "That doesn't count." to everything; without any clue as to why you don't think it counts beyond the fact that it happens to say or imply something you don't like the idea of. So I don't see what's going to change, especially given that your standard of proof for evolution would seem to be one that you absolutely know is impossible to get to and also one which you don't apply to any other area of scientific endeavour. You talk the talk on having an open mind but on this you certainly don't walk the walk.

Personally I think you should read a basic primer on evolution and come back to us. I'd recommend Richard Dawkins' The Anscestor's Tale(and thankfully he keeps the anti-religion down to a minimum in this one and gets on with the job of talking about the subject at hand) not the least because it not only tells you what is known, it also tells you about how we know it. If you really want to go to town, you might try Stephen Jay Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory although that is something of a monster. He goes through, amongst other things, the historical and philosophical background of the theory in great (some would say mind numbing) detail in its 1200 pages...

[Darkwatch]

To be honest go with Gould. The book may be a monster but it is complete in every sense.

[stone monkey]

Darkwatch, on 24 January 2010 - 09:57 PM, said:

To be honest go with Gould. The book may be a monster but it is complete in every sense.

Yeah, it might as well be subtitled Everything You Want To Know About Evolution (And Quite A Few That You Didn't) But Were Afraid To Ask I nearly did my back in carting that thing about in my bag for weeks...

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on 24 January 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

Gem said:

Terez, I'll respond to your post at a later time.

Don't bother.

Also, keep in mind that we're not upset because you're challenging our beliefs; we don't care about our beliefs nearly as much as you do. We're upset because you use underhanded argument tactics. It's frustrating because it seems like you do it on purpose, intending to obfuscate the issue as much as possible, but I suppose it's possible that you do it on accident.

I'm sorry if that's how I come off, but it's not my intention.

Terez, on 24 January 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

Gem said:

...I do think the theory of evolution is largely invalid...

Since you're perfectly willing to say that you are ignorant on the subject, then why can't you admit that your religion is a motivation for your disbelief in the theory?

Because it's not true.

Terez, on 24 January 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

Because there really is no other reason why a person who is almost completely ignorant of a scientific theory should challenge the veracity of said theory, when the scientific community has reached a widespread consensus about its validity.

If that's what you have to believe to make sense of what I am saying, then go ahead, but it's not true.

Terez, on 24 January 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

This is why many people are reluctant to discuss evidence with you; it is obvious that you are predisposed to dismiss the theory because of your religion, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

It is not true. I am not predisposed to anything. However I readily agree that I might not have enough knowledge to beat you, so to speak, but I am here to express my views and maybe learn something. It's not working.

Terez, on 24 January 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

Gem said:

Now, I've tried to move forward, but you still won't level with me

That is because you are still not being level with us. We've told you what the purpose of this thread is, and that your layman's non-understanding of the theory has pretty much nothing to do with it. The thread only exists because of the fact that Christians are trying to suppress knowledge of the theory, because it contradicts their beliefs. For whatever reason, you jumped on the bandwagon.

How is criticism the same as suppressing knowledge? Besides, I am here to learn.

Illuyankas, on 24 January 2010 - 09:32 PM, said:

People call you a troll because they have repeatedly described evolution to you at great length and at various levels of technical detail and you continually prove that you haven't read a thing.

No, you've been talking above my head, and mostly said I'm stupid for not seeing what you guys see.

Illuyankas, on 24 January 2010 - 09:32 PM, said:

For example:

Gem Windcaster, on 24 January 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

I do think there are proof of species adjusting to their reality, to survive. I don't even discard every data that is connected to the theory of evolution. But the idea that everything evolving to something higher (or better) is something I can't agree on. How do we know it's not getting worse? How do we measure, for example, sentience or intelligence of something that lived millions of years ago?

This is an incorrect take on it. You've had it pointed out to you, shown to you, and flat out told to you that's it's wrong. It is not a purposeful direction to something 'better' or 'higher', it's random changes - LOTS of random changes over many generations, which for larger lifeforms with long gestation periods and breeding cycles is a long, LONG time - in the genome which are incredibly minor. Most of these do nothing. Some are harmful to the creature. A few make one thing slightly easier for it, this gives the creature a slight advantage over its competitors in the field, this makes it live longer and breed more, passing this advantage on to its offspring. These are also advantaged, live longer and breed more, until the majority of that species has the change. It's not a 'better' change because while it might make it easier for Creature A to thrive over Creature B in Enviroment 1, if Enviroment 1 changes or the creatures must move to Enviroment 2, Creature B might have an adaptation that is very poor for Enviroment 1 but gives it the edge in 2 over the more specialised Creature A. Sometimes it's a change that did nothing in 1 but effects live in 2, for example. There are fossils of sabertoothed tigers and pre-buffalo that as the fossils get younger and younger, the pre-buffalo that developed a slightly thicker ribcage survived the tigers and bred more than its fellows so the majority of pre-buffalo had thicker ribcages, then the sabertoothed tiger who developed larger fangs was able to eat the thicker-ribcaged pre-buffalo easier than its fellows and bred more so the majority of sabertoothed tigers had larger fangs. This became a vicious circle where the pre-buffalo that developed thicker and thicker ribcages survived better against the tigers who grew larger and larger fangs, to the point where the latest fossils of those species had massively overdeveloped fangs and ribcages that prevented them moving or eating as easily as their competitors, and they died out. Better has no meaning for evolution, it's all about what it more adapted for its enviroment. Worse for the situation a creature is in means they die sooner and without breeding as much. And as for sentience, tool use is a pretty good indicator.

Thank you for the explanation, I'll let it sink in.

Illuyankas, on 24 January 2010 - 09:32 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 24 January 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

Since there is so much of the theory of evolution I can't agree with, I can't really say it's proven or even valid. Because much of it doesn't make any sense.

You disagree because you misunderstand. From the perspective of the people in the thread this misunderstanding appears to be willing. You don't tell us what parts of the things we've described and linked to you don't understand, in fact you don't mention them at all. We've linked proof. You've denied it by making your version of the word proof into 'if I haven't seen it, it doesn't exist'. We haven't seen tectonic plates move around as they don't do so fast enough to be seen, yet you believe in the validity of tectonic plate theory thanks to evidence like plate boundaries and earthquake prediction. We haven't seen stars change from birth to Main Sequence to red giant/white dwarf-hood because of the time scales involved, yet you believe in the validity of astronomy. If you don't trust the evidence for evolution then you must logically doubt the evidence for these as well.

I am not willingly misunderstanding, what I am expressing is real issues that I feel should be resolved - if it means I have misunderstood something, you can do something about it, all I can do is try to understand, but knowledge doesn't just fly into my head, and even less so understanding - I have to work for it. Since I can't buy the current version of the theory, I am here, in this thread. Why can't you see that? I've already said I want the truth.

Those other theories: I believe in them as much as I believe in the theory of evolution. And I believe in those enough to be comfortable with them, just like the theory of evolution.

Illuyankas, on 24 January 2010 - 09:32 PM, said:

You aren't criticising it. You need to have a basic understanding of the theory to do so, and you've shown repeatedly that you have neither that understanding or a willingness to achieve it. Your religious bearings don't matter to me, your arguments alone prove this.

I do want to understand better, but calling me unwilling and stupid doesn't exactly help me. Secondly, the arguments as I see them have not consisted of why the theory is valid, but of "look here, this is proof", just like the mere existence of a paper or study is enough to make it so. Not to mention they go completely over my head.

Illuyankas, on 24 January 2010 - 09:32 PM, said:

It's simple. It's not a valid criticism. We've shown how it isn't one, we've shown you what is wrong with it, and you've ignored it and kept on anyway. The blinded by your own faith stuff is completely irrelevant to the thread and I agree it's not necessary, but you're still ignoring what's in front of you for whatever reason you've chosen, religious or otherwise.

You're entitled to think it's invalid criticism, but I don't ignore anything unless I don't understand it. The stuff you feel I have ignored I don't understand anything of.

Illuyankas, on 24 January 2010 - 09:32 PM, said:

I'm not upset, I'm just tired. Tired of looking at your posts in this thread and seeing the same thing in every single one, from 2008 to now. Tired of seeing reams of information written by pretty much every single other person in the thread, written for you in answer to your claims, and the very next post making it crystal clear you haven't taken a word in. Tired of you harping on about how you're a free-thinking reactionary challenging the staid establishment and then saying either the blindingly obvious or incorrect information, again and again. I'm tired of your wilful ignorance, I'm tired of your snide insults. You need to make the effort to understand us and our information, we already have for you and yours and it isn't relevant to the thread. We get what you're saying. It's just not related to the subject at all.

So tired of this blank wall.

What you describe is much like I feel. I can try to understand you more, but then you have to really consider what I am saying. I don't feel like anyone has even considered what I am saying at all. If it's wrong information, then give me the correct information. You haven't. And don't say that you have linked to lots and lots and explained, because it's simply not true. Secondly, I do think the data is correct, and I think I've said as much before. SO why don't I accept the theory as valid? Because my interpretation of it is different. While you don't seem to accept the notion that there is some sort of interpretation involved, or that there can be only one.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 24 January 2010 - 11:26 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 24 January 2010 - 09:47 PM, said:

Gem,

I'm only going off the evidence you've so amply provided. If you take the trouble to say the exactly the same sort of things as someone who absolutely does not want to hear anything about the subject that she might disagree with, I don't see why it's at all untoward that I draw that conclusion from your remarks...

I do want to hear about it.

stone monkey, on 24 January 2010 - 09:47 PM, said:

Anyway, let's talk about evolution, shall we? What do you want to know?

Yes, please.

stone monkey, on 24 January 2010 - 09:47 PM, said:

Although I don't quite see the point. Every time in the past I (and others) have gone through this, your response has been "That doesn't count." to everything; without any clue as to why you don't think it counts beyond the fact that it happens to say or imply something you don't like the idea of. So I don't see what's going to change, especially given that your standard of proof for evolution would seem to be one that you absolutely know is impossible to get to and also one which you don't apply to any other area of scientific endeavour. You talk the talk on having an open mind but on this you certainly don't walk the walk.]

Personally I think you should read a basic primer on evolution and come back to us. I'd recommend Richard Dawkins' The Anscestor's Tale(and thankfully he keeps the anti-religion down to a minimum in this one and gets on with the job of talking about the subject at hand) not the least because it not only tells you what is known, it also tells you about how we know it. If you really want to go to town, you might try Stephen Jay Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory although that is something of a monster. He goes through, amongst other things, the historical and philosophical background of the theory in great (some would say mind numbing) detail in its 1200 pages...

Know what? Why don't we compile a list of questions that you guys can answer, and I will just listen until you feel I have understood it, and I feel I have understood it. Then we can really discuss. Fair enough? I'm not sure how well I'm going to do with scientific English, but I'll try. *writes down book title*

[stone monkey]

Gem Windcaster, on 24 January 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

How do we know it's not getting worse? How do we measure, for example, sentience or intelligence of something that lived millions of years ago?

Okay, here's are specific questions that are answerable, I'm afraid you won't like the answer, but here goes:

"better" or "worse" are concepts that only make sense, in this regard, if you assume that evolution is directed to some end - teleology. This is not the case. Evolution isn't toward some distant goal of higher intelligence, longer legs, the ultimate poison etc. It's about staying alive now. They only reason anything is alive now is because its ancestors stayed alive long enough to successfully reproduce. The only way anything alive now will have any descendants is if it stays alive long enough to reproduce itself.

Reproduction is a lottery, you get a random mixture of your parents' genes in a 50:50 ratio if your parents reproduce sexually, of which maybe a few have changed due to transcription errors or environmentally induced mutations; if you're from a asexually reproducing species then you're a clone of your parent bar a few transcription errors and the environmentally induced mutations again. This is the crux of the issue, nothing is ever identical to what came before it. These genes are pretty good ones, they helped to keep your parents alive long enough to have you, after all. But the thing is, everyone else around you has got their parents' genes too; and as their parents also lived long enough to produce offspring they'll also have provided their children with a pretty good set of genes. So, you're the descendant of an unbroken line of badasses and everyone around you is also the descendant of an unbroken line of badasses (some of whom may even be the same badasses) and you're trying not to get eaten as well as competing for food and territory and, most importantly, the opportunity to reproduce and pass your genes on to the next generation (as you can be a killing machine, totally unstoppable, but it doesn't matter because unless you can pass it on to your children your genes will die with you)

Here we get to the various types of selection - you got a random mixture of genes from your badass parents, along with a few randomly mutated base pairs, and this mixture makes you a different creature than anything else that has existed. If you're lucky (and the odds are that you won't be) there's something about you that makes you more badass than anything else around you i.e. more suited to your environment or more efficient in your biochemistry or more fertile or even just more attractive to the opposite sex (if you happen to be from a sexually reproducing species). This means that, statistically, the next generation, and those afterwards, are going to have more of your descendants in them than your competitors.

There's another way to beat your competitors too, move to where they're not (and, if you're a sexually reproducing species hope that somebody you can breed with moves too). This is where it gets interesting, your descendants will now be competing against each other. So if they are going to pass their genes onto the next generation they'll have to have the qualities mentioned above as they apply in their new environment (which is likely to be different from the one you came from because, if you were top dog in that one, you wouldn't have had to move). Over time this means that, if the two populations don't interbreed, it will become impossible for them to do so due to genetic drift (which has to happen as there's no such thing as perfect copying) All this time this new populaion will be being sifted by their environment so that they become more and more adapted to it. Ta-daa, speciation.

But there's more... there are reproductive strategies; maybe you have one or only a few children and spend a lot of time and energy to really look after them so as to make sure they survive to breeding age or maybe you have millions of them and waste no energy at all on them and trust to the balance of probabilities that at least one of them will survive to breeding age. Perhaps, if you're male, you try to mate with as many females as possible or maybe you stick to one and keep an eye on her so you know the children you're raising are actually yours. If you're female, perhaps you mate with the best male available or maybe mate with an average male and cheat on him while his back is turned with the hunk in the next forest clearing and make sure he doesn't notice the children arent his while he helps you raise them... And then there are the really bizarre options...

[Edit - I just thought of a good(ish) analogy]

You've got 100 randomly picked six-sided dice and you roll them a bunch of times to see which ones have the highest average (Can't you just tell I used to play RPGs? ) then you make 100 exact copies (or as exact as you can make them) of those. Repeat a few hundred or thousand or million times. The dice you end up with after all of this probably bear little resemblance to the bog-standard six-siders you started off with; small features have grown large, they might not even have the same number of sides. In the end you'll probably have dice that roll a six most of the time. Which is a major difference from the 1/6 of the time that the ones you started off with did. Those dice have evolved to meet the challenge of the environment they're in (one that requires high rolls)

And then you sell them to D&D players...

There you go, Evolution 101 and that's the barest tip of the iceberg.

As for intelligence and sentience in fossils, difficult to tell... You can look at brainpan casts (where the rock matrix infills a skull) which will tell you something about the size and shape of a creature's brain. Which in turn, based on what we know about animal brains today, tells you a bit about how smart they were. But this is actually irrelevant. Smartness doesn't necessarily equal survival. And ancient creatures weren't evolving towards sentience, that's teleological thinking again; you've got to get out of the habit of that if you want to get evolution. They weren't evolving towards anything, they were just busy trying to get by and reproduce in the environment they lived in.

Short question, long answer.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 25 January 2010 - 01:25 AM

[Epiph]

stone monkey, on 24 January 2010 - 09:47 PM, said:

Personally I think you should read a basic primer on evolution and come back to us. I'd recommend Richard Dawkins' The Anscestor's Tale(and thankfully he keeps the anti-religion down to a minimum in this one and gets on with the job of talking about the subject at hand) not the least because it not only tells you what is known, it also tells you about how we know it. If you really want to go to town, you might try Stephen Jay Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory although that is something of a monster. He goes through, amongst other things, the historical and philosophical background of the theory in great (some would say mind numbing) detail in its 1200 pages...

Dawkins' new book The Greatest Show on Earth was written specifically with people like Gem in mind: it's Evolution 101 for the layman.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Gem Windcaster, on 24 January 2010 - 11:23 PM, said:

What you describe is much like I feel. I can try to understand you more, but then you have to really consider what I am saying. I don't feel like anyone has even considered what I am saying at all. If it's wrong information, then give me the correct information. You haven't. And don't say that you have linked to lots and lots and explained, because it's simply not true. Secondly, I do think the data is correct, and I think I've said as much before. SO why don't I accept the theory as valid? Because my interpretation of it is different. While you don't seem to accept the notion that there is some sort of interpretation involved, or that there can be only one.

You say here that you accept the data. Excellent. Now, if you have accepted the data, and do not come to the same conclusion, then what we have is not a conflict of information, which is apersonal and independent, but a conflict of belief, of personal bent.

What I think trips people up, is the optimistic feeling that maybe you argue from a position of ignorance, and it would therefore be a problem of information, which would be remediable.
But as it stands... we're not about to convince you.

I can't believe I'm actually about to agree with Illy.

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 27 January 2010 - 10:17 AM

[Gem Windcaster]

I would just like to say that 'accepting the data' seemingly doesn't mean the same to me as it does to you. A summary of how I see this thread is as follows: from my perspective I cannot disagree with the scientific data, as much as I know and understand it, while I cannot accept some part of the scientific interpretation, as much as I know and understand it. I realize that I could be misunderstanding either the data and/or the interpretation. What you mean when you say 'belief' I say it's interpretation. And belief is built on top of that interpretation. To me there's a difference between being predisposed to a certain interpretation because of a consisting belief and having a different perspective because of that belief - I am the latter. I don't feel bound to have a certain view of science - and that stems from my beliefs. But to say that I am bound by my beliefs is ridiculous - and if you knew what I believe and how I see my own faith, you would say the same thing. Just like you are annoyed that I make judgments about your scientific theory, to you seemingly without any real knowledge or understanding, likewise I am concerned that you make judgments about what I believe without any real knowledge or understanding. There's a difference though, as people have pointed out: beliefs are personal, scientific theories are public standards.

I understand how you guys see me in this thread - you see me as misguided, possibly deluded. You have no respect for my views, because I don't agree with things that to you are obvious, not even questionable. While I understand the position, it's not very tolerant.

The reason I've been able to discuss here when others can't is because to me, the theory of evolution is irrelevant, even more so the creationist stance. My intention was never to convince you the theory is wrong, nor make you not believe in it. I am here to learn something about myself, the theory and you guys. On occasion it has backfired.

While I know that there is no data or piece of knowledge or understanding that would make the theory relevant to me, I still want to learn, and correct the misconceptions I have about the subject. I will continue to ask questions and read the sources you guys have pointed me to. But I gracefully resign the battle - to another time.

I hope you can forgive me for the aggressive play, the insults and the controversial tone of argument - I never lie though.
I've enjoyed it, so thanks for letting me part of the thread (although some of you probably want to kill me at this point).

[Adjutant Stormy~]

/thread.

Perhaps this thread will be revived in the future. In a coherent fashion.