Register to reply

What Has Understanding Evolution...

by Whalstib
Tags: evolution
Share this thread:
Whalstib
#55
Mar14-11, 12:17 PM
P: 119
Quote Quote by mishrashubham View Post
OK....
Frankly speaking I didn't understand most of that. When I said "in clear terms" I also meant in Simple English. You see I am not adept in this language. So please if you have any questions in your mind please restate them in an easy to understand style of writing, preferably 2-3 sentences.
.

Sorry man! I'm good
Whalstib
#56
Mar14-11, 12:23 PM
P: 119
Quote Quote by mishrashubham View Post
Calm Down...
This is my favorite response to date!

I cracked up with this under my big bold desperate words!

Thanks!

W
DanP
#57
Mar14-11, 01:03 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by Whalstib View Post
Yea I know especially when those sensibilities are accuracy and a sense of inquiry that goes against dogmatic paradigm!
No. You asked what understanding evolution did for us, you was presented information. You claimed that "bad things" have arrived from the understanding of evolution, and you was told that this is false. Science dos not kill. Humans do.

There is no accuracy and inquiry in your posts. And you have no idea what dogmatic means.

If you want to discuss Hitler and Herrenvolk / Untermensch politics of Hitler, there is a social sciences forum where you can get an idea of what actually happened there.

And for your information, Mao and Stalin cared **** about evolution, if anything they fall in the completely opposite direction, complete social engineering.
Whalstib
#58
Mar14-11, 01:59 PM
P: 119
Dan,

No. I said bad thing occurred due to misunderstanding evolution.

If you can't understand and comprehend that your entire argument crumbles.

W
DanP
#59
Mar14-11, 02:14 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by Whalstib View Post
Dan,

No. I said bad thing occurred due to misunderstanding evolution.

If you can't understand and comprehend that your entire argument crumbles.

W
Then again, did you ? Read your own post again.

Quote Quote by Whalstib View Post

Funny I can think of any number of bad things that have arisen due to understanding evolution but can't come up with a whole lot of good ones!

Warren
Whalstib
#60
Mar14-11, 02:31 PM
P: 119
Dan the thread has evolved and been clarified!

As a staunch supporter of evolution one would assume you can follow along with the changes.....

I believe I took the blame for poor choice of words several times clarified my position and most of us have moved on.

Dan conversations evolve. Terms are clarified, positions shifted based on provided information. This is called learning.

Too bad I'm sure you thought you were quite cleaver but this is only an embarrassing example of poor research skills. Actually it's not this because you have exhibited top notch reasoning skills for the most part so you are well aware of the state of the conversation. This is actually more condemning because you have purposely left out data which refutes your findings and makes your conclusions not only false but scandalous.

W
DanP
#61
Mar14-11, 02:55 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by Whalstib View Post

Actually it's not this because you have exhibited top notch reasoning skills for the most part so you are well aware of the state of the conversation. This is actually more condemning because you have purposely left out data which refutes your findings and makes your conclusions not only false but scandalous.

W

Yeah, like I said, sue me, sue Darwin, sue Dawkins :P Somebody lock this thread.
SW VandeCarr
#62
Mar14-11, 03:32 PM
P: 2,501
Quote Quote by DanP View Post
Yeah, like I said, sue me, sue Darwin, sue Dawkins :P Somebody lock this thread.
I second the motion. This is not a scientific discussion. It's about philosophical opinions and beliefs and doesn't belong in this forum. I know people love to watch fights, but take it somewhere else.
Whalstib
#63
Mar14-11, 03:35 PM
P: 119
Exercise some restraint and ignore that which upsets you. You are not forced to read or respond in any manner.

W
mishrashubham
#64
Mar14-11, 11:41 PM
P: 605
Quote Quote by SW VandeCarr View Post
I second the motion. This is not a scientific discussion. It's about philosophical opinions and beliefs and doesn't belong in this forum. I know people love to watch fights, but take it somewhere else.
Another vote from me. If Warren doesn't ask a short, straightforward, logical question in his next post, this thread must be locked as it leads to nowhere.
bobze
#65
Mar15-11, 12:36 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 645
So do you have any questions about evolutionary theory then Warren?
Whalstib
#66
Mar15-11, 12:51 AM
P: 119
Here's some


Does evolution have predictive powers?

Have any mechanisms been identified?

Have we been able to steer evolution on small scale say with viruses?

What is the most striking example that a layman can appreciate about evolution?

Why do chemists who deal with the basic building blocks of "stuff" have the least to say on the matter?

Are there any scientific method driven legitimate peer reviewable research going into ID? Or is it strictly the realm of crack-pots?


Strictly speaking ID does not have much to do with evolution per se but it is a part of the discussion. Please ignore if this line of inquiry upsets you and allow others who may have a take on it to chime in.

W
Whalstib
#67
Mar15-11, 01:24 AM
P: 119
Do you think the trajectory of the above discussion may have marginalized anyone with evolutionary AND ID leanings on the forum? Would such a person feel comfortable commenting with such ideas? Do you care?

Also how do evolutioists deal with peoples from other cultures who have strong traditional beliefs on creation, say the Hopi? True enough they aren't attempting to sway public opinion and influence schools (Did I mention I against creationism being "taught" in science classes in public schools?) but has anyone seen Spencer Well's "The Journey of Man"? If so what did you think when he had to school the Aborigonie that his dream time myth was exactly that "dream time" ie false and Spence had the real answer? It was interesting that the Navajo were quite receptive in the small clip shown that they came from Asia not related to ridiculous Spider Woman and silly emergence tales.

I wasn't too disturbed when pressed to find more evidence about any migrations Spencer quickly stated the water level was much lower and all the migration that took place along the shore is now underwater.

I hope this is in the realm of evolution as it deals with the emergence of man from Africa and the evolution of hominids.

W

Thanks for asking Bobze!
bobze
#68
Mar15-11, 01:28 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 645
Quote Quote by Whalstib View Post
Here's some


Does evolution have predictive powers?
Yes, many. Many of these questions are things covered in formal study of biology and that is probably where it would be best to learn them. However, I'll point you to some examples you can look into. Some good examples then;

Marsupials in Antarctica, Tiktaalik, The whole field of genetics, predator prey relationships, granting eye sight to "blind" cave fish, Xanthopan morgani praedicta (moths), etc, etc. There are many as it is a pretty damn powerful theory.

Quote Quote by Whalstib View Post
Have any mechanisms been identified?
What mechanism?

For starts you should understand that there is a biological fact of evolution (that allele frequencies change across generations, or another way of saying---in a more molecular world---"descent with modification") and there is what the layman calls "evolutionary theory", which really refers to the modern synthesis. As a unifying theory of biology it incorporates many other facts, hypothesis, theories etc.

The goal of science then, is to explain a natural phenomena. Evolutionary change which gave rise to the biodiversity of life on earth is explained with selection, mutation, drift and "migration"--Though, these are broad reaching ways that change is fueled.

Asking someone to teach you all this on a message board is a little unreasonable. Again, this a pretty general and big question that would best be learned through formal study or at the least a lengthy book written for the layman of biology. Both Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True and Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth are books written for the laymen of biology and adequately explain the origins, evolutions, mechanisms, theories and evidences of the modern synthesis.

Quote Quote by Whalstib View Post
What is the most striking example that a layman can appreciate about evolution?
Well that's rather a subjective question unique to the individual. I'm a microbiologist by training and so am biased toward bugs. Ergo, I think one of the most interesting examples of evolutionary change is in resistance genes in bacteria. To quote Gould;

Fair enough, if we wish to honor multicellular creatures, but we are still not free of the parochialism of our scale. If we must characterize a whole by a representative part, we certainly should honor life's constant mode. We live now in the "Age of Bacteria." Our planet has always been in the "Age of Bacteria," ever since the first fossils—bacteria, of course—were entombed in rocks more than 3 billion years ago.

On any possible, reasonable or fair criterion, bacteria are—and always have been—the dominant forms of life on Earth. Our failure to grasp this most evident of biological facts arises in part from the blindness of our arrogance but also, in large measure, as an effect of scale. We are so accustomed to viewing phenomena of our scale—sizes measured in feet and ages in decades—as typical of nature.


Link


Quote Quote by Whalstib View Post
And I'd like Bobze in particular to address this one:

Does homology indicate common ancestry?
and was this response warranted:
Get an education in science rather than cut and pasting from creationist factoid websites.

W
Yep, that's pretty much what happens when you pop onto a form and don't bother to read the topic you're replying too/use the search function/do your homework/etc....
bobze
#69
Mar15-11, 01:38 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 645
Quote Quote by Whalstib View Post
Also how do evolutioists deal with peoples from other cultures who have strong traditional beliefs on creation, say the Hopi? True enough they aren't attempting to sway public opinion and influence schools (Did I mention I against creationism being "taught" in science classes in public schools?) but has anyone seen Spencer Well's "The Journey of Man"? If so what did you think when he had to school the Aborigonie that his dream time myth was exactly that "dream time" ie false and Spence had the real answer? It was interesting that the Navajo were quite receptive in the small clip shown that they came from Asia not related to ridiculous Spider Woman and silly emergence tales.

I wasn't too disturbed when pressed to find more evidence about any migrations Spencer quickly stated the water level was much lower and all the migration that took place along the shore is now underwater.

I hope this is in the realm of evolution as it deals with the emergence of man from Africa and the evolution of hominids.

W
Again, you're taking a sidetracking dive from the science of evolutionary biology and on into the realm of social and philosophical discussion. The universe and science as an extension via study of the universe, cares little for how "entrenched" in a belief we are. Lots of people believe things, that they believe them doesn't really change how reality behaves.

No amount of prayers offered up to Russell's orbiting teapot will make it so. You should pick up a copy of Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

And who are 'evolutionist'? If by that, you mean people who have studied the evidence for evolution and accept it based upon that study then whats the need to point them out as 'evolutionists'? Do you also refer to people who've studied plate tectonics as 'plate tectonicists', or those who've studied germ-theory of disease as 'germists' or those who've studied atomic theory as 'atomists'?

If you want to not be sterotyped as a creationist, then dropping the creationist lingo maybe beneficial to that. You know, like momma always said; first impressions are everything.
Whalstib
#70
Mar15-11, 02:15 AM
P: 119
Quote Quote by bobze View Post
Again, you're taking a sidetracking dive from the science of evolutionary biology and on into the realm of social and philosophical discussion. The universe and science as an extension via study of the universe, cares little for how "entrenched" in a belief we are. Lots of people believe things, that they believe them doesn't really change how reality behaves.

No amount of prayers offered up to Russell's orbiting teapot will make it so. You should pick up a copy of Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

And who are 'evolutionist'? If by that, you mean people who have studied the evidence for evolution and accept it based upon that study then whats the need to point them out as 'evolutionists'? Do you also refer to people who've studied plate tectonics as 'plate tectonicists', or those who've studied germ-theory of disease as 'germists' or those who've studied atomic theory as 'atomists'?

If you want to not be sterotyped as a creationist, then dropping the creationist lingo maybe beneficial to that. You know, like momma always said; first impressions are everything.
Frankly I didn't realize I was using "creationist" lingo. The term "evolutionist" is aimed at the apologetics branch of the science. I know it sounds silly to us gravitatioists et al<G!>

It is a science that is being discussed as a philosophy in many circles and should be addressed. I understand if some don't want to discuss the social implications so please don't feel compelled to post if it's too emotional a topic for you.

Frankly I would not be too upset if Jimmy Swaggart started crying when evolution was explained to him. Kinda be funny. But that's because those guys are a real burr in the saddle. But other cultures seem to function quite well with a solid spiritual foundation that has myths and truths counter to evolutionary ideas. I plan to work off a grant teaching at a Native American reservation/nation. Not that I'm worried about their feelings per se but there IS something on a different level evolution doesn't explain or answer fully. Is it incumbent upon me to kick out the crutch as it were and replace it with what western society has to offer based on the scientific method? You have already admitted to fully appreciate the matter is an advanced undertaking. How does one replace a multi generational tradition with a theory that can't be fully explained and in fact demands you shift away from your own paradigm and accept it first before you can begin to comprehend?

You invoke Dawkins again and he's stated he justified his atheism with evolution. That is quite extreme to some ears. How can one win hearts and minds with such absolutes at the meet and greet?

G'nite,

W
Fra
#71
Mar15-11, 02:57 AM
Fra's Avatar
P: 2,799
I don't want to interfere with the sidetrack but how about if we just for the sake of reflection turn the question of the OP around.

In post #15, I look the liberty to rephrase the OT (as I understood it) as:

"ok we are the result of evolution" but so what? How does that help us here and now? What VALUE does this "insight" add?

I think this is a good question, and there is an answer.

But how about this:

"ok we are the result of gods hand" but so what? How does that help us here and now? What VALUE does this "insight" add?

I think this is also a good question, and even though I am not religious I can see the answer.

If we try to answer both, and then compare, in the context of the superior goal:

How does whatever STANCE help us here and now? What VALUE does this "insight" add? And how does it increase our survival chances?

Actually, I would insist that even from a scientific perspecive, one can "study religion". I mean, what is religion, what is the benefit of religion etc? You look look at the effect relgion have on a population or individual from a scientific perspective.

So maybe we can all try to keep even the relgious part of the discussion at an intellectual and scientific level.

Let me start:

IMHO, the most obvious benefit of religion to an individual is a feeling of security, confidence and somehow MENTAL SUPPORT and that even in situations when you are weak or alone, the belief in God may give you mental strenght to keep fighting. (ie "have faith in your quest" don't give up; this DOES indeed have a survival value; the question is just WHAT do we believe in; I think this is subjective. Even scientists have faith in the scientific method. Why? ;)

I certainly see this, even if I am not religious myself.

Next, one can wonder if this belief induced confidence is good or bad, in the context of learning. I don't know if this is ever studied, but I wonder if the preconception that somehow "everything is caused by god" affects the internal drive to seek and understand causation in terms of scientific explanation?

One one keep speculating about this... borderlining to human phsychology too and how the human brain works but this I suspect it also controversial to people who are religous as maybe we are "not supposed to understand" certain things.... that's exactly my concern.

But still, each human has a free choice, to believe in what they want. And what is interesting from a scientific perspective is to understand the "rationality" in believing in God, from the inside view. This can be understood, even if somehow who does not believe may wonder "how can you believe this or that".

/Fredrik
Ken Natton
#72
Mar15-11, 03:56 AM
P: 272
Fra, I don’t agree with you that ‘what has the study of evolution done for mankind’ is a good question, however you may choose to rephrase it. As I have said previously, if you take it absolutely at face value it seems a hopelessly naïve question to me. Even if you allow only purely utilitarian answers to the question, still they are so broad and so varied as to be glaringly obvious. It is like asking, ‘what has the appearance of life on earth done for mankind?’ I would warrant that much serious biological research is underpinned by a knowledge and understanding of evolution and of phylogeny that the biologists involved are not even terribly conscious of applying, so basic and fundamental is that knowledge to the very idea of the research.

So do I think that Warren is really that naïve? No, of course he isn’t Warren knows exactly what he is doing. What he is doing is in no way original. Not one thing he has said isn’t wearingly familiar and very tedious. And you are falling right into his trap.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ecosystematic Evolution (symbiosis in the importance of evolution) Biology 5
Help! Historical evolution of understanding of SR Special & General Relativity 38