Evolution My ToE

[Hockeycowboy]

That's a dishonest, fabricated addition.

I put that in parentheses, didn’t I? It’s also spaced. The “I’d” is me, obviously.

 

[Jose Fly]

I put that in parentheses, didn’t I? It’s also spaced. The “I’d” is me, obviously.

Thanks for the clarification. Now, are you going to address the rest of my post or are you conceding those points?

 

[YoursTrue]

It remains a Red Herring and some phony blue smoke and mirrors based on a religious agenda that you consider textbooks seriously outdated. The science textbooks in fundamentalist schools are thousands of years outdated. Scientific knowledge is not personal opin.on. Your objections definitely are personal opinion unless you can present a sound scientific argument to support your assertions,

Your problem with National Geographic simple enforces your anti-science bias and lack of knowledge in science. You would need to present a scientific argument to refute it instead of a personal objection.

So what do you believe? Do persons lie because they have evolved to that point?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no idea what "explosion of the articles" you are talking about.

I was referring to the "big bang" theory.

Even to a blind man, the sun is very different from the moon. Do you think people back then got moon tans or moon burn?

In any case, stars are not different from the sun. You really should have known that since the third grade. And I guess God didn't tell Paul.

Stars are not different from the sun? (Who said they were, by the way? Stars are stars and planets are planets.) Are all stars the same size? (For starters, that is.)

Did you not notice that there was no mention of planets. Could it be God didn't tell Paul they were different from stars?

I have a feeling that Paul was commenting about what he saw as the "starry heavens." He did know that there is a moon, and the moon is different from the sun. I don't know if planets were named by earthlings at that time.

Do you understand that many of the "stars" that you see and that the Bible writers saw are not stars, but are distant galaxies? I guess God didn't bother to tell them that either.

There are few times that Paul spoke about direct contact with God, the Almighty. Paul made perfect sense. The Bible is not about science, and it's not a science textbook. But Paul recognized that the stars differ from one another in their aspects. They are not the same. But they are glorious, nevertheless. Looking at the night sky if you can see the stars without pollution clouding up the view are usually a reason to be in awe of the fabulousness of the starry heavens.

Everything that Paul writes about is "apparent" to the naked eye. Many of the things that Paul writes about are wrong. I guess you were trying to make a point but I have no idea what it could have been.
Thanks for verifying what I said earlier...
The draw of Genesis is that it is simple. God did this and God did that and someone did this and someone did that. All on a level that a second-grader can comprehend.

As Jesus said, the truth about God is given to those not necessarily with a degree in physical and astronomic education.

 

[YoursTrue]

Accuracy is different from whether the information is actually wrong, and no it is rare for the information in contemporary textbooks at the time they are published to be completely wrong.

The example you provided concerning the atomic weights of elements not being totally accurate is not something totally wrong information. The atomic weights as provided in charts is more than adequate for basic chemistry and organic chemistry until one is in the advanced studies in physics and chemistry.

I am not sure where this is going, because inaccuracies in textbooks and problems with peer review are indeed corrected over time, and the knowledge of science does indeed progress and improve. Textbooks are revised every few years.tp correct errors. This in reality has little or nothing concerning the science of evolution.



Yes.

So the elements that high school chemistry teaches or taught is not wrong, in your opinion, just maybe a little inaccurate.

 

[shunyadragon]

So the elements that high school chemistry teaches or taught is not wrong, in your opinion, just maybe a little inaccurate.

True. As far as basic chemistry and organic chemistry the element descriptions weights and properties work just fine

 

[YoursTrue]

Disagree.

I'ld rather say that "death is the endpoint of life".
The opposite of alive is not alive.
Sure, death qualifies as not alive.
But death also implies "once alive".
So "not alive", isn't excluded to just things that are dead.

Rocks aren't alive, and never were. To call the status of rocks "death", is simply a misapplication of the term. It's just wrong.

I do not disagree that death applies to once alive. Something can't die if it was not alive. But then here is one definition of abiogenesis:
From Encyclopedia Brittanica: (I emphasize certain words...)
Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex. Biogenesis, in which life is derived from the reproduction of other life, was presumably preceded by abiogenesis, which became impossible once Earth’s atmosphere assumed its present composition.

No. "Death" and "non-living", are not the same thing.

Without quibbling over this too much, would you say that a lion that has died is non-living? I can understand your delineation, but life is not death, and yet non-living matter is said to produce "life."

 

[YoursTrue]

True. As far as basic chemistry and organic chemistry the element descriptions weights and properties work just fine

I'm guessing here. Do you suppose that the drawings that were used to illustrate Haeckel's theory of recapitulation were not wrong but just a bit inaccurate, and so would be ok to be taught today as true (as you say the basic chemistry and things like that are)?

 

[YoursTrue]

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. If they had evidence, they would just present that instead.

Faith is also not a pathway to truth, because anything can be taken on faith.

OK, let's go back to the definition I just gave of abiogenesis from the Brittanica, which says:
"Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex."

 

[shunyadragon]

So what do you believe? Do persons lie because they have evolved to that point?

Uncertain to what your point is here. Lying itself does not have anything in particular to with evolution.

As far as lying goes as nature of social behavior, yes humans lie, but so do other primates.

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-moral-lives-animals/201112/those-lying-apes

But it's not only males who deceive in order to get away with sex that is forbidden by the socially-powerful. In his book Chimpanzee Politics (1982), primatologist Frans De Waal writes of Orr, an adolescent female at Arnheim, who would scream while she was having sex. During sneaked copulations with younger males, however, her screams sometimes caught the attention of the alpha, who would do his mighty best to interrupt the couple. Eventually, Orr learned to suppress her vocalizations when mating with lower-ranking males, while she continued the habit of screaming whenever she mated with the alpha.


Competition often motivates individuals to deceive in order to get what they want, whether it's sex, power, or food. Once at Arheim, the chimpanzees all observed the arrival of a box of grapefruit. While they were locked in their sleeping quarters, however, primatologist de Waal brought the box out into the public area and buried the grapefruit in sand. He left a small portion of each grapefruit still uncovered by the sand, just enough for a very observant chimpanzee to notice. After the fruit had been buried, the researcher walked past the chimps with the empty box, and so--understanding what that meant--when they were released from their night cages, they raced off in search of the fruit. Several rushed and scrambled right past the place where the special treats had been buried in sand, but none paused to examine that area carefully. Later on that day, however, as the chimps were relaxing during their regular afternoon siesta, a young male who had been among the group that earlier rushed past the buried grapefruit, now quietly raised himself from his relaxed sprawl, casually strolled over to where the grapefruit had been hidden--away from the gaze of his relaxing fellows--and dug out the fruit and consumed it at his leisure.

Source: google images
We often use deceit to cover some other moral failure, but one distinctive thing about human lying is that we understand that the lie itself is wrong. Lies confuse others, inhibit others, hurt others, and so we understand that lies are anti-social and belong on the list of anti-social moral vices. Other people usually expect the truth, after all, and when we violate their expectation, we've done a wrong thing that is sometimes worse than the bad behavior we were trying to conceal in the first place. That, at least, is the wisdom imparted by our mothers when they said, "I don't mind that you took the cookie from the cookie jar half as much as I mind that you lied to me about it."


Chimpanzees often deceive each other and their human caretakers, that much is clear, but is it also true that chimpanzees, like our own mothers, dislike being deceived? No one has thought to ask this question, and, in any case, it would be a hard one to study experimentally, so I will conclude this post with a simple story on the subject as recollected by Frans X. Plooij, a primatologist at the International Research Institute on Infant Studies in the Netherlands. (You can find this tale in PT blogger Marc Bekoff's collection, The Smile of a Dolphin.)


Like several prominent primatologists of his generation, Plooij was first trained in field research at Jane Goodall's research site in Tanzania, where he studied the group of chimpanzees already made famous by Goodall's early work. As Plooij recalls, at Gombe all researchers were forbidden from interacting in any way with the chimps. The reasons for that rule were obvious. Interaction could affect the research results, so it was bad science. Interaction could also endanger the chimps, who are capable of contracting virtually every infectious human disease. Finally, it could endanger the people, both through disease transmission and also through plain physical damage, should the chimps ever appreciate how remarkably weak people are. When the chimpanzees made any attempt to interact with researchers, therefore, they were instructed, in Plooij's words, "to act like pillars of salt."

Plooij had spent more than a year watching and assessing the behavior of the adult female Passion and her infant Prof. At the same time, Prof's oldest sister, Pom, could never be avoided, since she was still young enough to spend all day near her mother. The chimps weren't usually interested in people, and the people had been instructed to act as if they were uninterested in the chimps, so all this scientific observation took place as if an invisible wall separated the watchers from the watched.


One day, however, Pom tried to reach through that invisible wall. Pom approached the young man and began stroking and poking her fingers into his hair. She was trying to groom him, which is a friendly thing to do among chimps. Plooij was astonished but also pleased. He found the sensation of Pom's soft touch in his hair to be "wonderful," and he was tempted to groom her in return. But, of course, that would break the rule against interaction. No, to be a proper scientist, to protect himself and the chimps, Plooij knew he had to keep that invisible wall intact, and so he acted as if nothing had changed. He remained motionless, unresponding. What else could he do?


Pom, however, continued trying to groom this stange, stubborn ape.

Plooij was now distressed, since it wasn't clear how he could rid himself of Pom. Then he had an inspiration. He remembered how Passion had once managed to discourage a similar kind of pestering behavior by young Flint. Flint had one time been interested in touching Pom's baby Prof. Indeed, Flint spent most of an entire day persistently approaching Passion and reaching out to touch the baby; and Passion, who seemed upset and annoyed, could only turn her back to Flint and clutch her baby defensively. In other circumstances, a mother might not put up with this sort of harassment, but Flint was the son of the socially-powerful female Flo, so Passion was probably reluctant to smack or chase away Flint because she feared an enraged mama Flo. In any case, near the end of the day, Passion finally came up with a brilliant method for getting rid of pesty Flint. She simply stood up and gazed with dramatic intensity at a distant spot, seemingly watching some especially provocative far-away event.


Flint took the bait. He began gazing into the distance as well, as if trying to figure out what Passion saw that was so interesting. Soon, Flint was moving towards the imagined event, and the second he had moved out of her line of vision, Pom, clutching Prof, just took off in the opposite direction.

So the young researcher, now remembering this clever little trick done by Passion to get rid of Flint, decided he would use the same method to get rid of pestery Pom. He pretended that he had suddenly discovered some astonishing event in the distance. He looked up, gazed intently, even moved his head a little from side to side as if focusing his sight acutely. And it worked! Soon Pom had stopped trying to groom Plooij and was looking in the same direction he was. Pom then walked tentatively a short distance toward the imagined point of interest, looked back at Plooij, who continued gazing. Finally, the young chimp decisively moved off and out of sight, headed into the forest in the direction of that imaginary event--and so the researcher was at last able to return, unimpeded, to his observations of Passion and Prof.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not disagree that death applies to once alive. Something can't die if it was not alive. But then here is one definition of abiogenesis:
From Encyclopedia Brittanica: (I emphasize certain words...)
Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex. Biogenesis, in which life is derived from the reproduction of other life, was presumably preceded by abiogenesis, which became impossible once Earth’s atmosphere assumed its present composition.

Without quibbling over this too much, would you say that a lion that has died is non-living? I can understand your delineation, but life is not death, and yet non-living matter is said to produce "life."

So, what is the problem with uncertainty in science? It is far better than the arrogance of fundamentalist opposition against science.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, let's go back to the definition I just gave of abiogenesis from the Brittanica, which says:
"Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex."

The Britanica is not a science reference. It is a general third party reference for the general public.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, let's go back to the definition I just gave of abiogenesis from the Brittanica, which says:
"Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex."

VERY complex, I would say. From a unicell (they say) to hands, feet, teeth, kidneys and so forth. Increasingly complex, they say.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm guessing here. Do you suppose that the drawings that were used to illustrate Haeckel's theory of recapitulation were not wrong but just a bit inaccurate, and so would be ok to be taught today as true (as you say the basic chemistry and things like that are)?

Drawings of to illustrate Haeckel's theory of recapitulation?!?!?!

Your digging deep into what is the basis of a theory from simply the basics of chemistry used in school and indistry.

Back to reality please.

 

[shunyadragon]

VERY complex, I would say. From a unicell (they say) to hands, feet, teeth, kidneys and so forth. Increasingly complex, they say.

Not a coherent discussion of the science of evolution which you reject based on a religious agenda no matter how it is worded. Of course your neglecting several billion years.

It is obvious you do not understand the basic college level of increasing complexity over time and evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, what is the problem with uncertainty in science? It is far better than the arrogance of fundamentalist opposition against science.

I am not opposed to science. On the other hand, however, observations are showing that the water level of the oceans is rising and putting coastlines in dire risks. Also, it's probably billions (not millions) spent on "space travel" and exploring outer space, instead of concentrating on working on the oceans which are continually being horribly polluted.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not opposed to science. On the other hand, however, observations are showing that the water level of the oceans is rising and putting coastlines in dire risks. Also, it's probably billions (not millions) spent on "space travel" and exploring outer space, instead of concentrating on working on the oceans which are continually being horribly polluted.

Avery superficial understanding of science based on a religious agenda, and a failure to respond to the post .

Again . . . So, what is the problem with uncertainty in science? It is far better than the arrogance of fundamentalist opposition against science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Drawings of to illustrate Haeckel's theory of recapitulation?!?!?!

Your digging deep into what is the basis of a theory from simply the basics of chemistry used in school and indistry.

Back to reality please.

Here's reality -- what medical advances has knowledge of evolution provided?

 

[shunyadragon]

Here's reality -- what medical advances has knowledge of evolution provided?

No not reality . . . Not actually not remotely related to whether the science of evolution is valid science, and reinforces your very shallow objections based on a religious agenda and not science.

Nonetheless, Developing new treatments for diseases that develop resistance through evolution. The evolutionary relationship between species and varieties is used in DNA research to develop genetic treatment of defects and diseases.

 

[YoursTrue]

Avery superficial understanding of science based on a religious agenda, and a failure to respond to the post .

So are you saying that what I said is not true? Darwin and Wallace and Haeckel shook some populations in a profound way. This doesn't surprise me because even today religious opinion is widely varied and contradictory of each other. But yes, the millions, probably billions if not trillions are spent on figuring out what causes a black hole, what size a star is, how did it all start, while vast numbers of people are starving, mistreated and mistreating, but these others called scientists in astonomy are engaged in looking at things they can't possibly improve on. And in many cases they are paid to do so, while millions are dying of hunger, war, and lack of medical supplies. Abuse. That's just for starters.