|
I'm just not a fan of a 'pro-life' movement that vehemently supports the death penalty, encourages and defends terrorist bombings of clinics and murders of doctors, and is funded by the NRA).I hope that when you say "pro-life" movement that you are talking about the fringe minority of the movement.
As I referred to myself as anti-abortion, obviously I don't consider every single person who is anti-abortion to be a part of the element I very specifically detailed above.
If you don't support the stuff mentioned in the line you quoted, then obviously it doesn't apply to you.
Can I say 'obviously' one more time in this post? Obviously so, and obviously it doesn't mean what I thought it did, since I had to explain myself, despite the text quoted being quite specific and restrictive to particular sign-waving epithet-hurling firebomb-throwing elements of the movement.
Yeesh.
|
A New York journalist by the name of A.J. Jacobs tried to follow all of the rules set down by the Bible for one year, and found it nearly impossible. You can hear some of his experiences here.My wife read that book. It is really a good book and he (and the reader by extension) can really learn a lot about what a lot of it really meant or how it was done. One quick example I told about before is the complicated method of finding someone guilty for stoning. (And stoning was different in the Old Testament than the New.) Basically the thirteen leaders (12 tribes and Levites) would convene and vote -- if it was unanimous, the offender would go free because it would imply tampering with the system.
It really is a fascinating read, and I would recommend it for anyone interested in religion.
I've been looking for it for a while. I may just resort to ordering it.
I'm just not a fan of a 'pro-life' movement that vehemently supports the death penalty, encourages and defends terrorist bombings of clinics and murders of doctors, and is funded by the NRA).I hope that when you say "pro-life" movement that you are talking about the fringe minority of the movement.As I referred to myself as anti-abortion, obviously I don't consider every single person who is anti-abortion to be a part of the element I very specifically detailed above.
If you don't support the stuff mentioned in the line you quoted, then obviously it doesn't apply to you.
Can I say 'obviously' one more time in this post? Obviously so, and obviously it doesn't mean what I thought it did, since I had to explain myself, despite the text quoted being quite specific and restrictive to particular sign-waving epithet-hurling firebomb-throwing elements of the movement.
Yeesh.
Thanks Seth, I appreciate the clarification. :)
*good stuff about the intentions of various texts*
I'm rambling -- just wanted it to be clear that while I was trying to discount the "agenda" thing, I wasn't trying to put the entire Bible into a nice neat box with a cute bow on it.
That kind of thing is what I mean when I say the writers wrote to serve particular agendas. (I know, the word makes it sound like they were all nefarious. Only one's enemies have an agenda! We just have...goals we'd like to achieve. :) ) They had specific goals in writing (or editing, or compiling from multiple previous stories...all of these almost certainly happened) entirely aside from any kind of reportorial aspect to the stories. It doesn't necessarily follow that they considered the lot to be fables, but they weren't very likely to let facts get in the way of their purpose. Facts may not even have been available to them. This is pretty typical for the period. If you add up the reigns of the Sumerian kings you get reigns that stretch back to before the evolution of H. sapiens. Were the Sumerians fabricating extremely long reigns in the centuries to thousands of years range because they were dirty liars who wanted to fool future generations?
Well, yeah. (Ok you might not like the exact words, but we could agree in principle that they're being fast and loose with any facts they had.) Specifically they were writing to convince future generations of the supreme puissance of particular royal lines which not coincidentally were also paying the scribes. It's political propaganda.
The same is certainly true of a jumped-up hill chieftain named David, or more realistically those who claimed to be his descendants. Extrabiblical attestation starts with David, but the reference is ambiguous. It doesn't really mention him directly at all. There's a legitimate controversy over who this David was, if he was and wasn't just a mythic cultural hero, and what his kingdom would have been like, beyond the broad strokes of it being typical for its time and place.
Post monster is working overtime today I think.
"Divinely inspired" and "created by man" are not necessarily exclusive statements.
My personal opinion -- the Qur'an was "divinely inspired". The Book of Mormon was not. I truly believe that the "purpose" of the Qur'an is not what many sects have made it out to be.
The Sufi sect of Islam have an expression: "Right time, right place, right people". Which basically means, that although there is only one God, any true revelation of him must be tailored to the time, place, and audience receiving it.
I believe that killing someone is generally wrong. However, I can see, in certain circumstances, it is justified.I think almost anyone in the world would agree with you on this; I certainly do. But I also draw a line -- a heavy, bold one -- between "justified, although regrettable" and "righteously exalted."
I consider that line to be about twenty miles wide, with a mine field, razor wire and man eating sheep.
But I also draw a line -- a heavy, bold one -- between "justified, although regrettable" and "righteously exalted."I consider that line to be about twenty miles wide, with a mine field, razor wire and man eating sheep.
Thank you.
Thank you.But I also draw a line -- a heavy, bold one -- between "justified, although regrettable" and "righteously exalted."I consider that line to be about twenty miles wide, with a mine field, razor wire and man eating sheep.
Sorry, probably wasn't the place for levity, but hey, it seemed the way to add my agreement..
Sorry, probably wasn't the place for levity, but hey, it seemed the way to add my agreement..
Levity aside though, I agree. In general I'm against the sort of binary thinking ("Not as evil must therefore = holy") that you've set imaginary guards against.
Replying to a discussion started elsehwere on the boards:
I apologize you stepped in to the conversation not realizing this was just an analogy. I assure you, I am well aware this wasn't said until I said it.
Now this is going to get confusing: I am not saying that you said that anyone said such nonsense before. I am just saying that the fact that you cannot find Newton stating this could have to do with the fact that his theory could not predict anything remotely like this. As for Darwin's theory (if we are talking about evolution, not origin of life), it can make claims concerning the evolution of species since it is allows one to make verifiable predictions. In other words, I was just saying it was a bad analogy.
Continuing from there:
Regrettably, the evidence of such simian ancestry is the ever vaunted subjective evidence of which has been of such derision in this conversation. A few skeletons in the muck do not a convincing argument make for the evolution of an entire species to have been birthed from another. The one or two fossils which "may" have been the so-called missing link could merely have been quazimodo abnormalities that wouldn't be indicative of an entire species.
One or two fossils? You're about 50 years behind the times, mate. And there's the genetic "fingerprints" as well. Iron-clad? Hardly. But nowhere near as weak as you claim.
Also, with respect, continued use of Creationist catch-phrases like "an entire species to have been birthed from another," or "the missing link" (as if there's only one) suggests that either you're unconsciously phasing things poorly -- which I assume to be the case -- or else don't really have a firm grasp on them.
Like I said, by all means please give me a third option to evaluate in light of the evidence. Until then, we've got one that sort of works and one that doesn't work at all.
Now this is going to get confusing: I am not saying that you said that anyone said such nonsense before. I am just saying that the fact that you cannot find Newton stating this could have to do with the fact that his theory could not predict anything remotely like this. As for Darwin's theory (if we are talking about evolution, not origin of life), it can make claims concerning the evolution of species since it is allows one to make verifiable predictions. In other words, I was just saying it was a bad analogy.
Since the nature of what gravity is still eludes even modern science let alone in Newton's time, the off-the-cuff analogy I made really isn't any less viable. Considering gravity holds all the required elements necessary for life within proximity of one another...whose to say really? Since gravity seems to =/= molecular bonding the closest equivalent we know of, just because Newton didn't propose the idea doesn't mean it wouldn't have been a viable theory that by modern day would have had a serious amount of evidence given it would have had centuries to accumulate. Why didn't he suggest it? Perhaps a break through in the nature of gravity would have been obtained. *shrug*
All devil's advocacy aside, I agree the Newton analogy was silly, but it was intentionally so.
Like I said, by all means please give me a third option to evaluate in light of the evidence. Until then, we've got one that sort of works and one that doesn't work at all.
Yet, that's not the point I was making. I am not asking anyone to step away from their beliefs in any. I am merely pointing out that all theories as to the origin of man's existence, of life on this planet of ours, all require blind faith. Not one idea about man's origins can be proven based on the evidence at hand.
That's all I am saying. I am not trying to sway the boards that one idea or the other is more likely. It's everyone's prerogative to decide what they feel is best for them. But it's all based on how one believes, not "evidence". If you want to believe the most ludicrous notion you're going to. Whether or not Darwinism is ludicrous is for others to argue. I am just pointing out we all actual sit on the same playing field trying to get everyone else to pick our game whether the rules make sense or not.
Since the nature of what gravity is still eludes even modern science let alone in Newton's time, the off-the-cuff analogy I made really isn't any less viable. Considering gravity holds all the required elements necessary for life within proximity of one another...whose to say really? Since gravity seems to =/= molecular bonding the closest equivalent we know of, just because Newton didn't propose the idea doesn't mean it wouldn't have been a viable theory that by modern day would have had a serious amount of evidence given it would have had centuries to accumulate. Why didn't he suggest it? Perhaps a break through in the nature of gravity would have been obtained. *shrug*
Because it is not the nature of the gravitational pull which prevents it from having importance in molecular binding, it is its magnitude, of which Newton was well aware of *shrug*. A simple calculation would disprove such a theory.
Let us not, however, dwell in the discussion of hypothetical hypotheses and get back to the topic at hand. :)
Like I said, by all means please give me a third option to evaluate in light of the evidence. Until then, we've got one that sort of works and one that doesn't work at all.Yet, that's not the point I was making. I am not asking anyone to step away from their beliefs in any. I am merely pointing out that all theories as to the origin of man's existence, of life on this planet of ours, all require blind faith. Not one idea about man's origins can be proven based on the evidence at hand.
That's all I am saying. I am not trying to sway the boards that one idea or the other is more likely. It's everyone's prerogative to decide what they feel is best for them. But it's all based on how one believes, not "evidence". If you want to believe the most ludicrous notion you're going to. Whether or not Darwinism is ludicrous is for others to argue. I am just pointing out we all actual sit on the same playing field trying to get everyone else to pick our game whether the rules make sense or not.
What is your working definition of the term "theory" ?
And "blind faith" ?And finally, what is your understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution (in a resumed form) ?
I am guessing that part of the problem with this discussion is that we are using different meanings for words which are critical to this discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yet, that's not the point I was making. I am not asking anyone to step away from their beliefs in any. I am merely pointing out that all theories as to the origin of man's existence, of life on this planet of ours, all require blind faith. Not one idea about man's origins can be proven based on the evidence at hand.
You appear to have the wrong idea about science. Evidence does not "prove" theories. It supports them. This is as true for Darwinian Evolution as it is for Electromagnetism or Newtonian Mechanics. Kirth just laid for you evidence which supports Evolution theory and you say scientists give it credit due to "blind faith".
What is your working definition of the term "theory" ?
And "blind faith" ?
And finally, what is your understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution (in a resumed form)?
1. Suggested idea for how something operates, functions, or exists within a given concept. Widely accepted as being beyond dispute with the acknowledgement that a superior idea may exist which will supersede it
2. Believing in something that cannot be proven based on no, little, or partial evidence. I.e. Judeo-Christian God, life sparking from amino acids, thetans, etc. (I realize the age-old, "Am I real? Are you real?" argument could start here, but I am assuming we are all beyond that silliness.)
3. I am not truly speaking of Darwin's theory of evolution, but rather the idea that all life culminated as the result of random chance and then evolved from one species to another.
Sissyl wrote a great post in the other thread which provides the exact point I was making.
You appear to have the wrong idea about science. Evidence does not "prove" theories. It supports them. This is as true for Darwinian Evolution as it is for Electromagnetism or Newtonian Mechanics. Kirth just laid for you evidence which supports Evolution theory and you say scientists give it credit due to "blind faith".
If you believe that Darwinism or any other science based theory for the origin of life requires no leap of faith to maintain, then you are either too indoctrinated to continue this argument, or are missing my point entirely.
To revisit the "bad analogy" of Newton and gravity, there is much evidence to support the biological mechanism of evolution as there is much evidence of the law of gravity. There is no evidence to support Darwinism as the source of life, just as there is no evidence that gravity could produce life. Therefore, to believe either is blind faith, just as millions of religious zealots around the world believing in their God, gods, or ancestors also have blind faith. Now hopefully you understand why I used the Newton analogy - because it was utterly preposterous, yet has the same weight as the concept of evolution "originating" life.
EDIT: Though upon second thought, I suppose the gravity analogy isn't anymore preposterous than the next idea. There are certainly some religions which make my silly gravity notion sound almost brilliant.
There is no evidence to support Darwinism as the source of life, just as there is no evidence that gravity could produce life.
I'm totally at a loss. "Darwinism" has long since been modified due to new evidence to become "modern evolutionary synthesis" (including Darwin's ideas, plus Mendel's work, and also allowing for Gould's punctuated equilibrium model). None of these mention the origin of life, or have anything at all to do with it.
Tentatively accepting a theory with evidence, pending something better, is a far sight from "blind faith," precisely because of the willingness to modify and/or abandon it in light of new evidence.
There is no evidence to support Darwinism as the source of life, just as there is no evidence that gravity could produce life.I'm totally at a loss. "Darwinism" has long since been modified due to new evidence to become "modern evolutionary synthesis" (including Darwin's ideas, plus Mendel's work, and also allowing for Gould's punctuated equilibrium model). None of these mention the origin of life, or have anything at all to do with it.
While all this may be true, you speak as an educated person who has researched the information. Most science minded individuals or devout atheists who are not scholars speak of Darwinism or usually just "evolution" as the origin of man in the same fanatical sense of a religious zealot. Certainly you are aware of this behavior? If not, maybe I should have some of my friends post things on the boards, lol.
Tentatively accepting a theory with evidence, pending something better, is a far sight from "blind faith," precisely because of the willingness to modify and/or abandon it in light of new evidence.
Ah, but to move forward with future research "tentatively accepting" this as possible fact allows bias in future results. History has shown that sometimes leaps are made in science when someone rejects what has been "tentatively accepted" by everyone else. The Earth is flat, etc.
1. you speak as an educated person who has researched the information.
2. Most science minded individuals or devout atheists who are not scholars speak of Darwinism or usually just "evolution" as the origin of man in the same fanatical sense of a religious zealot. Certainly you are aware of this behavior?
3. Ah, but to move forward with future research "tentatively accepting" this as possible fact allows bias in future results.
4. History has shown that sometimes leaps are made in science when someone rejects what has been "tentatively accepted" by everyone else. The Earth is flat, etc.
1. I'm a professional geologist.
2. Aware of, and disapprove. Well-meaning zealots of any stripe drive me to distraction.3. Which is where peer review comes in. The easiest way to make a reputation for yourself in the science game is to show how badly someone else fouled up.
4. Again, you seem to be confusing "tentatively accepted" with "believe unquestioningly without evidence." There is a HUGE difference between the two, even if some people are not able to maintain that difference.
Tentatively accepting a theory with evidence, pending something better, is a far sight from "blind faith," precisely because of the willingness to modify and/or abandon it in light of new evidence.
After re-reading this statement, I realize this is the exact nature of blind faith albeit with the caveat of being able to jump ship if something else comes along. It still doesn't change that you are believing in something which may be as hollow as the next breakthrough shows it to be. I said may. :P
I see no difference in tentatively accepting and belief without evidence. Everyone's definition of evidence is different, and I imagine everyone's definition of subjective evidence will vary as well. Just because you are willing to adapt doesn't mean you don't have to take a leap of faith to make it to the place where you're at no matter how small you consider that leap to be. And that's all I am pointing out.
|
|
pinvendor,
I'm curious. Why do you keep switching between 'origin of man' and 'origin of all life' as if they were interchangable? They are very different things. We do not have much of a clue where life originated. This is very true and Kirth and I have said as much in response to you. We do, however, have a pretty good idea, backed up by genetic and fossil evidence, that mankind evolved from an ape-like ancestor which in turn evolved from another ancestor and so on and so forth.
Constantly trying to make two things that are not equivalent equivalent (as with your gravity example as well) makes you seem either ignorant in the extreme or deliberately trying to confuse things so that your point of view will seem more reasonable than it actually is. I hope that it is simply a poor choice of words rather than a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue
It still doesn't change that you are believing in something which may be as hollow as the next breakthrough shows it to be.
You mean something different by "believe" than I do. I don't "believe" the theory of evolution any more than I believe a kid who tells me he didn't steal his brother's candy bar. Which means I'm suspicious, but I don't yell at him yet until I actually catch him doing something.
I've caught special creation, especially in conjunction with a young earth, with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar. The gig is up; I KNOW that one isn't right, barring a sadistic trickster deity.
Modern evolutionary synthesis I haven't managed to catch in a lie yet. Doesn't mean I won't, though.
I still don't trust either of them, but they're hardly the same. In one case, we know it doesn't work, in the other, every time I've checked, its alibi has held up.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I see no difference in tentatively accepting and belief without evidence. Everyone's definition of evidence is different, and I imagine everyone's definition of subjective evidence will vary as well. Just because you are willing to adapt doesn't mean you don't have to take a leap of faith to make it to the place where you're at no matter how small you consider that leap to be. And that's all I am pointing out.
No. Evidence in the scientific sense means that you can run the same experiment and produce the same result.
The simple analogy is whether or not its raining outside. There are two ways we can try and figure it out.
1. You sit in a room and think really hard about the weather outside. After some time, you have a divine experience and declare "it's sunny." If we get a dozen people to do this, chances are that they will all come up with a different conclusion given that they are, in effect, just making it up. This is not evidence.
2. I step outside. I feel raindrops on my face. I see clouds. I put out a bucket. It fills with water over time. I bring out a half dozen people. They all declare that they can also see the water falling on them. They agree that water falling on them typically means it's raining. They may think the magical sky god makes the clouds, but we have actual evidence that it is raining.
The second example does not rely on blind faith. The first does.
Making observations about the world, testing those observations, and building models based on those observations is not blind faith. I may accept the models built by people who are more learned than me, and that is an act of faith, but I can test those assertions if I really want to.
Taking a text, any text, but particularly a text which is not based on real world observation and testing, and assuming its accuracy by fiat is an act of faith.
1. I'm a professional geologist.
2. Aware of, and disapprove. Well-meaning zealots of any stripe drive me to distraction.
3. Which is where peer review comes in. The easiest way to make a reputation for yourself in the science game is to show how badly someone else fouled up.
4. Again, you seem to be confusing "tentatively accepted" with "believe unquestioningly without evidence." There is a HUGE difference between the two, even if some people are not able to maintain that difference.
It's not that I am confusing it. I am just referring to "tentatively accepted" from the perspective most people have. It's the next rung in the ladder of science, and they will stand on it until it breaks under their feet. You would be in the minority it would seem, being of the sound mind to stand at the bottom, and simply say, "Ah, yes. I could climb as far as that, but let's make sure the step is sound." By your own admission, that's not the rule of thumb for most individuals, so I tailored my usage to fit that model. Leave it to the internet to throw a geologist at me! Yay randomness!
Leave it to the internet to throw a geologist at me! Yay randomness!
And something of a slap in the face to the people who constantly say things like, "what are the odds of a protein molecule assembling out of an amino acid soup?"
What are the odds of discussing the fossil record with a guy who turns out to be a geologist?
In this case, one out of one.
|
Kirth, have you seen the magazine "Mental Floss". I really think that you'd like it. At any rate, there was an article in it recently that talked about "debunking Darwin". I'm not sure that it really did "debunk" but rather further defined or narrowed how evolution works. I was kind of curious on your thoughts on the article if you get a chance. A "sneak peak" can be found here --> Sneak Peak.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Kirth, have you seen the magazine "Mental Floss". I really think that you'd like it. At any rate, there was an article in it recently that talked about "debunking Darwin". I'm not sure that it really did "debunk" but rather further defined or narrowed how evolution works. I was kind of curious on your thoughts on the article if you get a chance. A "sneak peak" can be found here --> Sneak Peak.
I think it's more an article clarifying the theory. The plain vanilla version of darwin is that your genes are fixed and the genes you pass on are randomly determined. Thus, the only way a particular trait passes on is because you reproduce before you die and the random gene you possessed (and passed on) contributed to your survival.
The latest research seems to indicate that the way your genes are expressed (or passed on) is also affected by environmental stimuli. This seems to be evidence in that vein.
That's my vague understanding at least.
Unfortunately, my molecular biology knowledge is weak -- hopefully there's someone here better that it than I am. If I understand it, though, a gene can be "switched on/off," so to speak, by environmental factors without otherwise changing the underlying code. Offspring could then be born with that gene switched to the new position, until some other environmental factor appeared/disappeared to cause it to switch back, or until the "normal" setting spontaneously re-asserted itself.
The genetic components of evolution are derived from Mendel's work and later stuff, of course; Darwin missed Mendel's publication and didn't know what the hell a "gene" was, so busting him in the chops with it is a little unfair. Modern evolutionary synthesis should be able to incorporate those types of things without too much problem that I can see, if my (very limited) understanding is correct.
|
|
Kirth, have you seen the magazine "Mental Floss". I really think that you'd like it. At any rate, there was an article in it recently that talked about "debunking Darwin". I'm not sure that it really did "debunk" but rather further defined or narrowed how evolution works. I was kind of curious on your thoughts on the article if you get a chance. A "sneak peak" can be found here --> Sneak Peak.I think it's more an article clarifying the theory. The plain vanilla version of darwin is that your genes are fixed and the genes you pass on are randomly determined. Thus, the only way a particular trait passes on is because you reproduce before you die and the random gene you possessed (and passed on) contributed to your survival.
The latest research seems to indicate that the way your genes are expressed (or passed on) is also affected by environmental stimuli. This seems to be evidence in that vein.
That's my vague understanding at least.
The pony is pretty much correct.
Darwin knew nothing about genetics just that "something" was inherited. We now know that genes can be made different by the environment (through a different expression of methyl groups) and this pattern can also be inherited. Ironically it seems that the Biblical quote "and they crimes of the father are visited on the sons even unto the third generation" is pretty much the length of time these methyl groups seem to last without the same environmental stimuli kicking them off.
Thanks, Paul. I knew there had to be a biologist around somewhere...
|
|
The latest research seems to indicate that the way your genes are expressed (or passed on) is also affected by environmental stimuli. This seems to be evidence in that vein.
That's my vague understanding at least.
Yes, but there's more to it than that. The study that was referenced basically talked about a very bad winter for this small town where they were pretty well cut off from everything for the entire winter. Many people died. The ones that survived had children -- but the children of the children who survived seemed to change genetically while the children of the adults who survived had very little (if any) change to their genetic make-up.
The article was basically saying that "survival of the fittest" didn't change the ones who simply "survived" and not even their children, but rather their grandchildren.
I'm probably getting something wrong. This isn't really my field. And it doesn't really "prove" or "dis-prove" much (if anything). My point (if I even had one) is just that a lot of things that people take as "fact" or "proof" are still being tweeked or corrected.
EDIT: and in the time it took to write this, Paul came on and gave a very good "layman's terms" explanation. Thanks.
I see no difference in tentatively accepting and belief without evidence. Everyone's definition of evidence is different, and I imagine everyone's definition of subjective evidence will vary as well. Just because you are willing to adapt doesn't mean you don't have to take a leap of faith to make it to the place where you're at no matter how small you consider that leap to be. And that's all I am pointing out.No. Evidence in the scientific sense means that you can run the same experiment and produce the same result.
The simple analogy is whether or not its raining outside. There are two ways we can try and figure it out.
1. You sit in a room and think really hard about the weather outside. After some time, you have a divine experience and declare "it's sunny." If we get a dozen people to do this, chances are that they will all come up with a different conclusion given that they are, in effect, just making it up. This is not evidence.
2. I step outside. I feel raindrops on my face. I see clouds. I put out a bucket. It fills with water over time. I bring out a half dozen people. They all declare that they can also see the water falling on them. They agree that water falling on them typically means it's raining. They may think the magical sky god makes the clouds, but we have actual evidence that it is raining.
The second example does not rely on blind faith. The first does.
Making observations about the world, testing those observations, and building models based on those observations is not blind faith. I may accept the models built by people who are more learned than me, and that is an act of faith, but I can test those assertions if I really want to.
Taking a text, any text, but particularly a text which is not based on real world observation and testing, and assuming its accuracy by fiat is an act of faith.
Reproduce life then. Get some amino acids together and make them live.
That is the blind faith part of the argument. Have I not said a bunch of times, I am not trying to debunk one theory more than any others? I am merely pointing out, every idea about the origin of life and (despite what's been stated as scientific fact) the origin of man requires a leap of faith. Whether it be that something sparked in the atmosphere to create an amoeba, God created the world in 7 calendar days, or whatever.
That's all I can say really. At this point I think I am rehashing myself, so hopefully, somebody understands what the simple comment I made what seems ages ago meant.
Ahh, geology, the queen of sciences.... :)
Heh, that one took me a minute. As a play on the medieval "theology is," or else on Gauss' self-proclaimed awesomeness, the jib works equally well in this case. I'm impressed.
|
|
The latest research seems to indicate that the way your genes are expressed (or passed on) is also affected by environmental stimuli. This seems to be evidence in that vein.
That's my vague understanding at least.
Yes, but there's more to it than that. The study that was referenced basically talked about a very bad winter for this small town where they were pretty well cut off from everything for the entire winter. Many people died. The ones that survived had children -- but the children of the children who survived seemed to change genetically while the children of the adults who survived had very little (if any) change to their genetic make-up.
The article was basically saying that "survival of the fittest" didn't change the ones who simply "survived" and not even their children, but rather their grandchildren.
I'm probably getting something wrong. This isn't really my field. And it doesn't really "prove" or "dis-prove" much (if anything). My point (if I even had one) is just that a lot of things that people take as "fact" or "proof" are still being tweeked or corrected.
Moff,
Not to cause offence, but Kirth and I have said, repeatedly, that "that's how science works". Each new bit of information is compared to what we currently think we know and if it doesn't fit, either it or the model we used gets bent and twisted until it does. Crude Darwinism hasn't been considered true for at least fifty and probably a hundred years. It's just that the basics of the theory still hold, so far, even if more gets overlaid on top as we learn more about how and what is inherited.|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm probably getting something wrong. This isn't really my field. And it doesn't really "prove" or "dis-prove" much (if anything). My point (if I even had one) is just that a lot of things that people take as "fact" or "proof" are still being tweeked or corrected.
True, but at this point the changes tend to be in regards to the details or the deeper understanding of how these principals operate. Take a look at the history of the model of the atom (dear physcisists reading this, please hop on in as I completely misrepresent this field).
Back in the day, you were taught the very simple mini-solar system atom, with a core of neutrons and protons, and electrons orbitting them. That model is extremely simplistic and significantly out of date. The current model is hella complex and has a lot of weird stuff going on. However, these refinements don't change the basic thrust of the atomic theory for most purposes (e.g., chemistry) or how the atoms generally interact with each other.
Same thing for a development like this. It doesn't challenge a core assumption of natural selection, it just provides some additional detail of the mechanics of the process.
|
|
Moff,
Not to cause offence, but Kirth and I have said, repeatedly, that "that's how science works". Each new bit of information is compared to what we currently think we know and if it doesn't fit, either it or the model we used gets bent and twisted until it does. Crude Darwinism hasn't been considered true for at least fifty and probably a hundred years. It's just that the basics of the theory still hold, so far, even if more gets overlaid on top as we learn more about how and what is inherited.
No offense. Actually, I'm really more on your side with all this. I was trying to show rather than simply tell that this is how it all works.
I am merely pointing out, every idea about the origin of life and (despite what's been stated as scientific fact) the origin of man requires a leap of faith.
(Grinds teeth). "The origin of life" and "the origin of man" are two totally distinct questions. (The latter has pretty good evidence. The former, not so good.) Constantly lumping them together is a standard Creationist obfuscation tactic, as is calling evidence-based theories "faith."
|
|
No offense. Actually, I'm really more on your side with all this. I was trying to show rather than simply tell that this is how it all works.Moff,
Not to cause offence, but Kirth and I have said, repeatedly, that "that's how science works". Each new bit of information is compared to what we currently think we know and if it doesn't fit, either it or the model we used gets bent and twisted until it does. Crude Darwinism hasn't been considered true for at least fifty and probably a hundred years. It's just that the basics of the theory still hold, so far, even if more gets overlaid on top as we learn more about how and what is inherited.
No problem. I'm feeling a little too combative at the moment owing to other events and comments, so I'll see if the meditation techniques I'm now learning will calm me down.
|
|
I am merely pointing out, every idea about the origin of life and (despite what's been stated as scientific fact) the origin of man requires a leap of faith.(Grinds teeth). "The origin of life" and "the origin of man" are two totally distinct questions. (The latter has pretty good evidence. The former, not so good.) Constantly lumping them together is a standard Creationist obfuscation tactic, as is calling evidence-based theories "faith."
Kirth,
You and I have both pointed this out several times across several threads. Time to stop feeding the troll.