Jump to content

The Darwin Spin Off


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 116 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

On 3/12/2021 at 6:10 AM, Theresa Tennyson said:

But not really until the time of Augustus, which was right around the time of Christ:

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/augustus_religion.html

And are you arguing that mass numbers of people haven't been killed for not obeying rulers who didn't clothe themselves in divinity?

Oh, and I just found this nifty article about how the U.S. Capitol has a painting of George Washington ascending to Heaven in glory:

https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

Augustus (63 BC – 14 AD) lived in a time when polytheism was predominant. It wasn’t a new thing. He just added himself to the list of deities, the start of Emperor as deity in Rome. Jesus (~1 AD - ~33 AD) and his followers were an annoyance to Roman emperors from their start. So, I am not sure what the ‘not really’ is referring to.

Are you… my post was a response to the idea Christianity was something that bloomed 400 or 500 years after its founding. It was a response about time. Within 20 years of Christianity’s founding, it was spread far and wide.

What has George got to do with the Royal Society giving up on Darwin’s hypothesis?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

self-help organizations

As far as self-help though, at least with my friend, they believe we are here to help each other also.  It's not all self help based.  Plus, many are philanthropists and only want to help others in real ways but it has nothing to do with a conversion to the Scientology Organization, it's merely "help" for someone in need.  He was a pretty nice guy.  One of the nicest in the neighborhood.  Always helping everyone.  

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever a discussion turns to ghosts or spirits or extraterrestrials or something unexplained that one group believes in and another doesn't, I always think about other things that are unexplained.

Göbekli Tepe, Puma Punku, Stonehenge are all places the exists yet no one can explain exactly how they were built.  Just because something can't be explained doesn't mean it ceases to exist.  

This article shows how something alive was found where up until then, no scientist would have thought possible yet there it is.  

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170803-in-earths-hottest-place-life-has-been-found-in-pure-acid

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FairreLilette said:
5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

self-help organizations

As far as self-help though, at least with my friend, they believe we are here to help each other also.  It's not all self help based.  Plus, many are philanthropists and only want to help others in real ways but it has nothing to do with a conversion to the Scientology Organization, it's merely "help" for someone in need.  

I just used the term 'self-help' organization to differentiate it from religions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2021 at 12:47 PM, Sequoia Sojourner said:

creationist method.jpg

Cute. Sadly inaccurate.

The point of this debate is on whether the Royal Society of London has problems with Darwin’s hypothesis and is moving on. I think I have established that is so. We apparently don’t have the facts for evolution spun into any hypothesis that actually works.

I’ll point out oldest and often most prestigious universities were founded by religious organizations.

On 3/11/2021 at 1:53 PM, TDD123 said:

That list indeed seems very void of unprejudiced info. Godreports.com? Foxnews.com ? Research ? Seriously ? :|

 

It does seem there are likely prejudiced sources in the list. But aren’t you being biased about the sources being biased? And did you look to see if the point I was making was true by looking at other searches?

If one clicks over to Google and runs the same search ‘fired questioning evolution’ we get 3.16 million hits and these sources;

  • ·         Wikipedia – now identified as biased by one of its founders

  • ·         Discovery – The TV people – talking about the problem

  • ·         University of Missouri-Kansas @ KC – Law Dept

  • ·         Atheistic Republic

  • ·         The Dispatch

  • ·         Washington Post

  • ·         Washington Times

  • ·         USA Today

  • ·         NPR

  • ·         The Guardian – UK

I think I made my point.

On 3/11/2021 at 2:14 PM, Madelaine McMasters said:

If you're concerned about Darwin getting some things wrong, how about the fairly recent discovery of epigenetic changes through methylation that exonerate Lamarck maybe just a little? Darwin's Pangenesis contains elements of Lamarckism. I don't think anyone believes in Darwin's gemmules today.

As Theresa notes, you're unlikely to find a scientist who gets everything right.

If it were ‘some things’ it wouldn’t be a problem. My concern was backing up my claim that the RSoL was dealing with core theory issues and they acknowledged it, as Richard William Nelson’s article points out (Jul 28, 2016) titled: Royal Society.

Earlier I agreed with Theresa that few get it all correct. But messing up the core idea requires new hypotheses. And that is what the RSoL is working on.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I just used the term 'self-help' organization to differentiate it from religions. 

Oh, I see.  It was funny to see some of the posts that came up about Scientology.  None of those existed through my friend/neighbor.  He was always on me about studying more about anything and everything really.  He felt learning and knowledge were key to our survival.

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you really haven't.

In fact, the last line from Nelson makes me question anything he would say 

Despite a flood of challenges since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 by Charles Darwin to prove otherwise, the scientific evidence on the laws of nature continues to be compatible with the Genesis record written by Moses.

Edited by Rowan Amore
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

It was funny to see some of the posts that came up about Scientology.  No of those existed through my friend/neighbor.  He was always on me about studying more about anything and everything really.  He felt learning and knowledge were key to our survival.

I don't know anything about your neighbor or his particular sect in LA, and perhaps his sect had morphed into a beneficial and harmless one, but I'd be a little cautious. This is how cults recruit you -- they seem very benign initially. Reading up on Scientology gave me the creeps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Augustus (63 BC – 14 AD) lived in a time when polytheism was predominant. It wasn’t a new thing. He just added himself to the list of deities, the start of Emperor as deity in Rome. Jesus (~1 AD - ~33 AD) and his followers were an annoyance to Roman emperors from their start. So, I am not sure what the ‘not really’ is referring to

 

What has George got to do with the Royal Society giving up on Darwin’s hypothesis?

 

I was responding to your post saying that the Roman Emperor was part of the Roman religion and therefore persecution of Christians was because of violation of Roman religion (which is why I quoted it). As you acknowledge yourself, Emperors weren't until right around the time Christianity began. There's no proof that Christians wouldn't have been persecuted for strictly political reasons - after all, one of the main reasons Christ was crucified was the Romans thought he was declaring himself to be "King of the Jews."

And George Washington comes into it because the idea of political leaders becoming at least unofficial religious figures isn't a practice that is restricted to Biblical times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 3/11/2021 at 5:57 PM, Arielle Popstar said:

When I read that paper, the author quite clearly states the intention to pull a sleight of hand that will allow Darwinism, Neo Darwinism and even the Modern Synthesis to stand unrejected while allowing new research and ideas to supersede them.

As we will see in the rest of this volume, several of these tenets are being challenged as either inaccurate or incomplete. It is important, however, to understand the kind of challenge being posed here, in order to avoid wasting time on unproductive discussions that miss the point of an extended evolutionary synthesis. Perhaps a parallel with another branch of biology will be helpful.

Insert a lengthy analogy from Molecular Biology setting a precedent that leaves the reputations of Watson and Crick untarnished.

All of these molecular processes clearly demolish the alleged central dogma, and yet do not call for the rejection of any of the empirical discoveries or conceptual advances made in molecular biology since the 1950s. Similarly, we argue, individual tenets of the Modern Synthesis can be modified, or even rejected, without generating a fundamental crisis in the structure of evolutionary theory–just as the Modern Synthesis itself improved upon but did not cause the rejection of either Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. ( Start at pg 9 )

It is basically showing Darwinism to be unfalsifiable as critics have been stating for years because the Royal Society won't allow it to be. Mainstream Science at its best.

Astute. Don’t blame just the RS. Lots of people participate in the Silencing Society of today. Even people in this thread. Which is very obvious to those that challenge ideas.

On 3/11/2021 at 6:47 PM, Luna Bliss said:

Hell arrived in America when the alt-right and Biblical literalists gained access to the internet.

So the biggest boon to free speech on the planet since the US Constitution comes along and your into trying to silence people and control speech on it?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Oh, for-- It's not a chicken or egg mystery. Someone claims God exists, saying that 'there is no proof, hence this appears false' is not a 'claim', it's an argument as to why the claim is preposterous. You don't get to just turn around and go 'Oh that's a CLAIM, so YOU prove he doesn't exist - tag, you're it!'; that's plain stupid.

Peter Pan exists.

Is this a true statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2021 at 4:03 PM, Aquila Kytori said:

@Nalates Urriah In the opening post of this thread you use the quote from the Richard Nelson's article titled Royal Society as a base for your argument :

 

The article is about 16 scientists getting together to talk about the latest evolutionary theories.

A quote from the article :

" The conference summit, dubbed The Altenberg-16, met locked in secrecy behind-closed-doors barred from any news media coverage. Eventually, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) published an essay from each attendee in the book Evolution, the Extended Synthesis (2010) "

 

A summary of the book, Elements of an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis  by Pigliucci and Müller can be found here  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerd-Mueller-4/publication/258235989_Elements_of_an_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis/links/0f31753a54d20a66c4000000/Elements-of-an-Extended-Evolutionary-Synthesis.pdf

They are not challenging Darwinism.  They are adding to and filling in details !

The Illustration below, is from Elements of an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis by  Pigliucci and Müller, (page 11) clearly shows Darwins theory is still at the core of evolutionary science.

Red text added by me :

 

869611527_Darwinatcenter-min.thumb.png.049e95e3157af6be6aae2e8a0326994d.png

 

 

Excellent come back. Mostly accurate and valid. It is nice someone is dialoging.

The point I made is supported by the quote of WHY they were gathered…

Pigliucci and Müller find the evidence for the standard theory to be “either inaccurate or incomplete.”  Since they see that the scientific evidence “clearly demolish[es] the alleged central dogma [the standard theory],” they convened sixteen leading evolution advocates to develop a framework for a new evolutionary consensus.

I think you are characterizating the nature of the meeting which, Richard Nelson made quite clear, by your ignoring the reason they met.

My point was/is there are problems with the ‘central dogma’ or core of the Darwin’s hypothesis and the RSoL and others are moving on from Darwin’s hypothesis.

While you and others validly point to support for various peripheral ideas in the Darwin hypothesis no one is providing support for the issues Pigliucci and Müller were hoping to have resolved. Not even the post meeting essays, AFAIK, provided that support nor provided answers to the questions injected by Information Theory and molecular biology in the following years.

Your link to Massimo Pigliucci’s book provides this quote from the abstract:

The book addresses the new information from molecular genetics and genomics that brings significant new issues to evolutionary theory, and describes the kinds of hereditary and replicatory mechanisms which are not considered within the framework of the MS.

So, my claim that the complicated issues faced from new science (~2010) had not been answered by the then new Modern Synthesis is supported by your link.

Notice in your diagram that Information Theory and the math and time issues are not shown. Since they admit they are not showing all the issues, it begs the question why some of the biggest ones are not listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't know anything about your neighbor or his particular sect in LA, and perhaps his sect had morphed into a beneficial and harmless one, but I'd be a little cautious. This is how cults recruit you -- they seem very benign initially. Reading up on Scientology gave me the creeps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

I was hesitant at first as I have had other's not leave me alone come to my home unannounced and couldn't hardly close the darn front door to shut them out as they would not stop talking and trying to hand me literature or tracks but these were other religions not Scientology so I understand.  But, in talking to him, it wasn't weird or scary and he never once tried to recruit me or anyone in the neighborhood.  Encourage learning is about all.  I asked him the questions Luna and he answered my questions about Scientology.  So what I learned was all from my questions because I've heard such weird things about it too.  IOW, I prompted it all and he never "preached" to me.  We were neighbors for 4 years, don't you think he would have tried to recruit me.  He never did.  

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2021 at 9:13 PM, FairreLilette said:

The problem is much of the Bible is Hebrew poetry and not scripture.  (Look up Hebrew Poetry.)  However, literalists believe every word in the Bible is scripture even though we know the Torah (the first 5 books of the OT) are the books of Moses.   Much of the Bible is not scripture, it's prophecy also, and lineage as well as other accounts of war, etc. 

 

That might have happened before.  Just going over events that happened here in America in the 20th Century due to Black Lives Matter has made me re-think some things about this country.  

 

Evolution does and cannot completely disprove an existence of a God creator.   And, if it can, how so?   What Darwin (and others before him btw) showed is that natural selection selects the survival of the fittest not artificial selection such as "good breeding" as was believed in England for quite a long time.   Artifical selection is breeding and breeding pure breeds and breeding was thought to be the only way to bring about survival of the fittest.  

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

the continued existence of organisms which are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution.

The bible discussion should go in another thread. That said… I’m not starting it.

You should probably define what you mean by ‘scripture’ and why you think some of the Bible is scripture and some is not.

Why would prophecy not be scripture?

 

Evolution is not about disproving a god exists. Often those interested in evolution are simply looking to answer philosophical origin questions. Evolution, if true, is thought to remove the dependence on a god, uncreated creator, for an answer.

Your idea that Darwin eliminated the concept of artificial breeding and limited it to natural selection is rather bizarre. I think any rancher or farmer would disagree. We artificially modify live stock and crops by controlling breeding. Prior to Darwin that was the only known way to change herd and crops.

Natural Selection based on Survival of the Fittest was his major contribution. Most of the rest of his hypothesis had been proposed before.

On 3/11/2021 at 11:45 PM, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

This is a good example of the many 'arguments' that are put forward by the OP: to spout their unprofessional opinions by misrepresenting scientific data to fit their own claims. But it's really a waste of energy to call them out on these missteps on each specific point, because while you waste your time on debunking them, they've moved on to the next level of BS.

It's really no point arguing with someone who will just Google for their next misinterpreted counter-argument.

Many arguments put forward by the OP? Really!?! Not completely what you mean by your reply to Aquila Kytori. But you seem to be talking about me.

I know it is a nuance many of you don’t get once you’re triggered. But my OP argument was singular. The idea I am defending there is RSoL is acknowledging Darwin’s core hypothesis can’t work in the face of new science and they are moving on to new ideas. Simple.

All the rest is window dressing and people bringing in other topics, which I did respond to.

Since your points have been knocked down and you obviously can’t find support for them, you try to attack me personally. It is what Alinsky recommended in his Rules for Radicals when one is losing on merit. I take it as a trustworthy indicator of when someone knows they have lost an argument on merit and does not want to admit it.

I haven’t been changing subject, moving on. If you follow my series of replies to individuals up through the thread, you’ll find I have stayed on their topic with my answers. At least I am trying. And I do bring in more support for my point in the answer but I am not obfuscating by jumping topics. A nuance that is easily overlooked.

Or are you simply trying to read the thread as one coherent story? If you made that mistake, I can see why a professional would get confused.

Those disagreeing with me are jumping all over the place as you say I am. Take another look. They do pull in all sorts of things to try and say “DARWIN WAS RIGHT”. I am just pointing out that all the heavy weights in the evolution fields say they need a better hypothesis in the face of newer science.

I like that you still try that call to authority, PROFESSIONALS… as a debate tactic. Why do I have to be a professional to quote a scientist writing in clear English? If I say points were not addressed and Massimo Pigliucci says the exact same words, how am I misrepresenting?

The thing about Googling for additional support, is the conversation moves forward. Aquila Kytori made an excellent come back pulling up information. I learned some things I didn’t know. Much better than someone that can’t be bothered with looking for facts that will prove they are wrong and hides hoping people will buy a line saying you are an authority on the subject.

Moving on to attempting to silence me saying 'don’t bother listening' has got to be embarrassing for you. I go and claim the scientific community silences people disagreeing with the orthodoxy of science and you jump in and do it when I disagree with you. What better proof for that point could I ask for?

On 3/12/2021 at 2:59 AM, Mollymews said:

Nalates, i think that you are way over-complicating your thinking. Cluttering your mind when there is no need too

a judeo-christian, meaning a person who believes that the Christ is the Son of the God of Abraham, inherits as part of this belief the story of Genesis

the story of Genesis describes the order of creation which largely parallels what we know/understand of the evolution of Earth thru our own (human) observations and measurements. We could nitpick that some things in the Genesis story are out of order, but is pretty close overall

we could also read the story literally in relation to time as we human beings understand time to be. Literally meaning that we read a Genesis day to mean a human day. Which is not necessarily true, and doesn't have to be true when we consider this within the judeo-christian belief system that God is everlasting. And is absolutely not true based on our own measurements of Earth as these biblical days relate to time measured in rotations of the Earth planet

it seems to me that you are questioning the tools that we (human beings) have at our disposal. And that's a valid question. What is not valid is to use the questioning of tools to invalidate what we can see with our own eyes with a clear and uncluttered mind

what you are arguing is "intelligent design". That carbon-based life is not a product of random interactions. That there is a design element in this

a thing. That a system generates random interactions doesn't make the system itself random - a pseudorandom generator is such a system. And when we examine pseudorandom generators then we soon see that in their construction there are bounds, parameters and rules. Parameters and rules which determine the breath and scope of the interactions within. And from these we can derive the laws that govern the system, like thermodynamics for example

when we think about this with an uncluttered mind then we can see a way to resolve a belief in God with evolution

on the existence of God, we can simplify this down to a single thought. Genesis:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

the judeo-christian belief of this paragraph is that God is omnipotent. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth out of nothing, and here is how God went about it."

the non-omnipotence view is: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth out of the materials that were available to God at the time (earth and water), and here is how God went about it."

the thing is that whether God is omnipotent or not, doesn't change the story of creation. It only changes the status of the creator. It doesn't either, change the construction of earth and carbon-based life - whether that be on the long timeline (evolution) or the short timeline (literal biblical reading)

as Maddy mentioned a long time ago when we discussed this on a previous incarnation of this forum: Whether the system is a universe-scale truerandom generator or a universe-scale pseudorandom generator doesn't change the effect on us (the life forms of earth) given the width and scope of the interactions that we can see and measure with the tools at our current disposal. And further that no matter the source of design, 'random' is generated by additive and subtractive actions and interactions

which was my own lightbulb moment. Able to reconcile my personal belief in atua with what I observe and can measure of the world that surrounds me of which I am a part

of the two, truerandom and pseudorandom, I am personally more inclined toward pseudorandom. Pseudorandom systems are bounded, they have parameters and rules. Truerandom systems do not. Inclined because atua, which is a personal leap of faith.

and this leap of faith doesn't negate what I see with my own eyes. And what I see doesn't negate or diminish atua. That others may not have made the same leap as me, doesn't change the story of creation. It only changes their view of the status of atua. And in some cases their view of me, and when so then oh! well and umm! can I get medium fries with that and can I get a chocolate milkshake instead of fizzy drink please

 

John Lennox does an excellent talk for Christians on The Seven Days that Divide the World.

As for what I am arguing it is simply that the RSoL is acknowledging the Darwin hypothesis does not work and is moving on to new ideas. I am not arguing FOR intelligent design. You are making some big inferences I think are off the mark. 

What observational tools have I questioned?

The rest of your post should go in another thread. Invite me an I’ll respond.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Augustus (63 BC – 14 AD) lived in a time when polytheism was predominant. It wasn’t a new thing. He just added himself to the list of deities, the start of Emperor as deity in Rome. Jesus (~1 AD - ~33 AD) and his followers were an annoyance to Roman emperors from their start. So, I am not sure what the ‘not really’ is referring to.

 

Are you… my post was a response to the idea Christianity was something that bloomed 400 or 500 years after its founding. It was a response about time. Within 20 years of Christianity’s founding, it w