13,000 Year old temple,

[robin wood]

Is it not a good thing that new knowledge ought to have to prove itself in an adversarial questioning environment before throwing out the old? Was it not always thus? Are we suggesting that Darwin or Copernicus had an easy ride?

I am rather distant from the academic scientific community but rather close to the artistic community in which the new and innovative tends to be favoured over the old and known. This has equally disastrous results with each generation of students trying to out innovate the ones that went before, 30 years down the line there is not much that has not been done so they have to go further and further out on a limb.

The truth is surely that the mass of students are not going to add to knowledge whether through encouraging innovation or reverence for the status quo. 999 out of 1000 will just do what they think is required of them and then go get a job, or not. It is the 1 on 1000 or probably a lot less that are the folk that move things forward and I suspect that the way you teach the masses probably does not have so much bearing on how these passionate folk progress.

 

[British Red]

Interesting, Robin. To some extent I agree but in others I don't. I quite like your use of the "cuckoo clock" paradigm of new knowledge proving itself, however I think the question is perhaps a little more fundamental in the sciences as opposed to the arts. The question is more should we teach people what to think or how to think? To my mind the most skilled educators teach process of thought rather than received knowledge.

Now, shall we move on to

"is beauty truth, or is truth beauty?"

Red

 

[Draven]

I never said neanderthal changed at all Pete. I asked how it could change in such a short period of time when you state that

"if an animal has existed in the same habitat for millions of years, and there hasn't been significant change to the habitat, the animal won't change much either.

Yet neanderthals environment changed exponentially a coulple of time during their known period of existence which was less than 300,000 years, they didn't change or die out until 15000 years after the ice receeded, How did they survive the ice? Why did they die out in favourable conditions? IMO this shows they were wiped out by a seperate species, so no evoloution there.

Firstly, the neanderthals appeared in their textbook form about 130,000 years ago and the most recent examples are about 30,000 years ago, so 100,000 years, not 300,000. Prior to that, there are Homo Heidelbergensis or Homo Rhodesiensis, considered to be the ancestors of Neanderthals. If you take a look at the Glacial stages on Wikipedia you'll see that there's been quite a bit of cold for the last few hundred thousand years, so it's likely that they were already suited to the cold when they appeared in their textbook form about 130,000 years ago. It's also likely that the use of tools and fire would have heightened their chances of survival, and competition is probably the cause of their death.

I think it is just as likely that neither complex or bacterial life just happened, i do not claim to know the origins of life, but i do doubt the official theories as it just does not make sense to me, and it is a leap of faith to assume what happened with no evidence. Think about it Pete if bacteria did not just happen then Darwin is wrong in everything and no one can prove the answer to this one question, probably the most important question in science. Darwins theory of evoloution came before the theory of the origins of life. In fact they had to make a theory of the origins or darwin could not be taken seriously as his theory hits a brick wall that cannot be overcome by the same theory.

There is evidence of evolution though, it's NOT just a wild guess.

Darwins whole idea is based on presumption. An educated and knowledgable man of that there is no doubt. But an educated guess is still just a guess. I agree that there is evidence to support his work, but i also know that it is nothing more than an idea based on the available info, and that is way too incomplete to be classed as anywhere near solid and proveable.

It's not presumption, it's a reasonable theory based on what we know and what we have observed - you're right though, in that it's not proveable or solid. For all I know we might be a result of an intergalactic bug splattered on the windscreen of an Alien spaceship which was hastily wiped off and flung at Earth

If bacteria can appear from nowhere on a planet with no life or atmosphere and we can not then the evoloution of bacteria is different to our own and everything else. So why can the test carried out even begin to encroach on our own evoloution when as you say bacteria does what we do not? Presumption, Presumption, Presumption based on incomplete evidence. We all know presumption is the mother of all f### ups.

It's not coming from nowhere, strictly speaking, it's an anomaly. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that the evolution is unique to bacteria - the reason that bacteria is more likely to occur as an anomoly than complex organisms is because the amount of order required to create a complex organism is such that it is just far more likely that a single celled organism is created rather than a one hundred trillion celled organism. If you throw a bag of rice on the floor, is it more likely that it will land in such a way that it forms the letter A, or that it will land in such a way that it spells out all the text and punctuation in Romeo and Juliet?

you said
"It's not "magic", that's just another argument to try and discredit any counter arguments. Look it up."

So what is it Pete you say spontinaeity, as in something just happened with no reason. Well that isn't science is it? It is also contradictory of everything discussed in this thread , of darwin, and of science as a whole. In fact it is nothing more than faith in someone elses ideas. Fully accepting without proof is the same as taking the word of a priest about god and we know what science thinks of that, yet contradicts itself over this issue which can prove it all wrong. That is why they give you the idea that its correct. Darwinism would be hoofed out the front door sharpish. All darwiners have to believe it or their idol would be just another bloke with a flawed theory.

It's spontaneous but that doesn't make it unscientific - it's down to probability. I'm arguing that it's more likely that a single celled organism was formed randomly, than several billion extremely complex organisms formed randomly.

Strictly speaking Darwin's theory is more about Survival of the Fittest, which is 100% proveable in nature. The suggestion that mutations can be beneficial and make the host better suited to survival, and thus the mutations may spread through reproduction, is hardly a leap of faith from that, considering that we know mutations happen.

Pete

 

[HillBill]

Is it not a good thing that new knowledge ought to have to prove itself in an adversarial questioning environment before throwing out the old? Was it not always thus? Are we suggesting that Darwin or Copernicus had an easy ride?

.

Definately not. Nor do i agree or disagree with his theories, i just ask questions that i would like an answer to, and challenge that which can not be proven, to people who accept it as fact.

 

[HillBill]

Firstly, the neanderthals appeared in their textbook form about 130,000 years ago and the most recent examples are about 30,000 years ago, so 100,000 years, not 300,000. Prior to that, there are Homo Heidelbergensis or Homo Rhodesiensis, considered to be the ancestors of Neanderthals. If you take a look at the Glacial stages on Wikipedia you'll see that there's been quite a bit of cold for the last few hundred thousand years, so it's likely that they were already suited to the cold when they appeared in their textbook form about 130,000 years ago. It's also likely that the use of tools and fire would have heightened their chances of survival, and competition is probably the cause of their death.


There is evidence of evolution though, it's NOT just a wild guess.


It's not presumption, it's a reasonable theory based on what we know and what we have observed - you're right though, in that it's not proveable or solid. For all I know we might be a result of an intergalactic bug splattered on the windscreen of an Alien spaceship which was hastily wiped off and flung at Earth



It's not coming from nowhere, strictly speaking, it's an anomaly. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that the evolution is unique to bacteria - the reason that bacteria is more likely to occur as an anomoly than complex organisms is because the amount of order required to create a complex organism is such that it is just far more likely that a single celled organism is created rather than a one hundred trillion celled organism. If you throw a bag of rice on the floor, is it more likely that it will land in such a way that it forms the letter A, or that it will land in such a way that it spells out all the text and punctuation in Romeo and Juliet?




It's spontaneous but that doesn't make it unscientific - it's down to probability. I'm arguing that it's more likely that a single celled organism was formed randomly, than several billion extremely complex organisms formed randomly.

Strictly speaking Darwin's theory is more about Survival of the Fittest, which is 100% proveable in nature. The suggestion that mutations can be beneficial and make the host better suited to survival, and thus the mutations may spread through reproduction, is hardly a leap of faith from that, considering that we know mutations happen.

Pete

There isn't evidence of evoloution, only fossils as Red says earlier, evouloution is a theory.

I didn't come to the conlusion that evoloution is unique to bacteria i just said that if bacteria can form on its own and we cannot then you cannot compare the evoloution of bacteria to our own, they start out different according to what you say in this thread so are we to assume they then change to parralel our own evoloution? Or will they remain as different as when they started? I understand and agree about the complexities of us vs bacteria and the probabilities involved( note probabilities, as in theres a chance that, that has happened but also a chance it did not), which is why i cant understand why you could even think bacterial evoloution is a basis to judge our own.

With regards to bacteria being more likely to just appear from nowhere. Well yes it is more likely than us appearing. But is it likely that bacteria will just appear from nowhere and from nothing? Probably not..


It seems both science and Carlsberg like the word probably.

Probably = we don't know but this is what we think.

 

[Tadpole]

Definately not. Nor do i agree or disagree with his theories, i just ask questions that i would like an answer to, and challenge that which can not be proven to people who accept it as fact.

Nothing can be proven, not even 2 plus 2. (ok it has been proven, but the maths involved is so complicated as to make it impossible for the average man to understand) so you are saying as there is no proof we can challenge everything.

 

[HillBill]

Nothing can be proven, not even 2 plus 2. (ok it has been proven, but the maths involved is so complicated as to make it impossible for the average man to understand) so you are saying as there is no proof we can challenge everything.

Yes.

Anything without proof is not fact, it is just theory. Any theory can be challenged, and always is.

If you or i were to end up in court, but there was no proof of the offence would it stand up in a trial?

No it would be thrown out
The situation may be different, but the guiding principles are the same.

 

[Draven]

There isn't evidence of evoloution, only fossils as Red says earlier, evouloution is a theory./QUOTE]
The fossils are evidence though, that's like saying we have no evidence for dinosaurs, only fossils There may be no conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence. We can't expect a billion year long videotape of evolution taking place can we?

I didn't come to the conlusion that evoloution is unique to bacteria i just said that if bacteria can form on its own and we cannot then you cannot compare the evoloution of bacteria to our own, they start out different according to what you say in this thread so are we to assume they then change to parralel our own evoloution? Or will they remain as different as when they started? I understand and agree about the complexities of us vs bacteria and the probabilities involved( note probabilities, as in theres a chance that, that has happened but also a chance it did not), which is why i cant understand why you could even think bacterial evoloution is a basis to judge our own.

You're cherrypicking now - I'm arguing that we evolved from bacteria, so yes, their evolution would directly correspond to ours. I also didn't say we cannot form randomly, it's just highly unlikely - similarly, the grains of rice might form Romeo and Juliet, it's just unlikely.

With regards to bacteria being more likely to just appear from nowhere. Well yes it is more likely than us appearing. But is it likely that bacteria will just appear from nowhere and from nothing? Probably not..

But it's not appearing from nowhere and nothing! It's an anomaly, as I said, I'm not saying it just appeared.

Personally I prefer the six-days theory to Carlsberg.

Pete

 

[HillBill]

You see, this is a debate that can not find any answers no matter how long or how in depth we go.

Simply because no one really knows.

You argue that we evolve from bacteria, i argue that we do not know and the theory is based on a probability, which may or may not be true.

It has been fun though

It is good to see a thread not turn into nasty remarks when strong differences of opinion are presented.

Mark

 

[Draven]

You see, this is a debate that can not find any answers no matter how long or how in depth we go.

Simply because no one really knows.

You argue that we evolve from bacteria, i argue that we do not know and the theory is based on a probability, which may or may not be true.

It has been fun though

It is good to see a thread not turn into nasty remarks when strong differences of opinion are presented.

Mark

It has been fun eh? Love a good debate me, and it's nice to know disagreements aren't taken personally.

Pete

 

[Tadpole]

Yes.

Anything without proof is not fact, it is just theory. Any theory can be challenged, and always is.

If you or i were to end up in court, but there was no proof of the offence would it stand up in a trial?

No it would be thrown out
The situation may be different, but the guiding principles are the same.

How is that related even remotely to the talk of proof?

Proof that you seem to want, based on observation, reproduction, repeatability, and understanding of the basic principles.
A Court room is more along the lines of biblical study; evidence is studied by application of ‘known principles’, not in an effort to disprove the ‘known principles’, but to compare that which has gone before with what is being questioned. If it does compare, it is accepted if it does not then it is discarded.

Scientific proof is take what is/has been accepted and either prove it, explain it, or disprove it. If you cannot prove it, move forward and study it until you can either explain it, or explain it .
Darwin may not be the right answer, but it is the right question. Science is like a 7 year old, always asking why, and anything that relies on faith for an answer is like an old man with no answer, tired and always willing to accept the answer “because”, just because it is easy

 

[firecrest]

Hillbill you are assuming evolution relies on the fossil record alone, but this isnt correct. The genome project is doing more to prove the theory of evolution than the fossil record.
but here is a side issue for you, i want to know what your take on it is:

It is the gradual progression of clawed fingers into a bird wing. although we can use the fossil record to compair the hand structure of raptor dinosaurs through to birds this diagrame is actually NOT a fossil!! It is the illustration depicting the change in anatomical structure of the Hoaztin from chick to adulthood.

you can just about see the claws on this chic here...

Note the similarities to our old friend here

You have misunderstood about Ligers. A liger is a mule - it cannot breed and therefor is not a new species. It is a perfect example of the evidence of evolution which has not come from the fossil record, in that lions and tigers are closely related enough to produce offspring as horses and donkeys, and llamas and camels are. The reason the liger grows bigger is that some hormones to do with growth are inherited from female (x) lions and and in tigers it is in the males(y) (this is off the top of my head i may be mixing things up) basically in the liger it does not inherit the correct growth hormones and so it continues to grow bigger and stronger throughout its life.
If this was the case in the wild, natural selection would take care of it - eventually it would grow too big to be able to susatin the nutrients it needed, or outgrow its food supply and die.
the truly disturbing part for people that refuse to believe that man came from apes is that we have more in common genetically with chimps than lions do to tigers. Not only that but chimps are more similar to us than to any other of the great apes. that means that not only are they our closest relatives, but WE are THEIR closest relatives. we can probably produce mule offspring just like the liger.

 

[HillBill]

Hillbill you are assuming evolution relies on the fossil record alone, but this isnt correct. The genome project is doing more to prove the theory of evolution than the fossil record.
but here is a side issue for you, i want to know what your take on it is:

It is the gradual progression of clawed fingers into a bird wing. although we can use the fossil record to compair the hand structure of raptor dinosaurs through to birds this diagrame is actually NOT a fossil!! It is the illustration depicting the change in anatomical structure of the Hoaztin from chick to adulthood.

You have misunderstood about Ligers. A liger is a mule - it cannot breed and therefor is not a new species. It is a perfect example of the evidence of evolution which has not come from the fossil record, in that lions and tigers are closely related enough to produce offspring as horses and donkeys, and llamas and camels are. The reason the liger grows bigger is that some hormones to do with growth are inherited from female (x) lions and and in tigers it is in the males(y) (this is off the top of my head i may be mixing things up) basically in the liger it does not inherit the correct growth hormones and so it continues to grow bigger and stronger throughout its life.
If this was the case in the wild, natural selection would take care of it - eventually it would grow too big to be able to susatin the nutrients it needed, or outgrow its food supply and die.
the truly disturbing part for people that refuse to believe that man came from apes is that we have more in common genetically with chimps than lions do to tigers. Not only that but chimps are more similar to us than to any other of the great apes. that means that not only are they our closest relatives, but WE are THEIR closest relatives. we can probably produce mule offspring just like the liger.

If an animal can change so much from newborn to adulthood then it is possible that some fossils found represent this rather than genetic change through evoloution. Not all, but evidence of this will be in the fossil record and could easily have been mis-interpreted. We just do not have anything near the full picture to make an accurate judgement.

Ligers and the like do have difficulty reproducing, but it is not impossible if you breed enough. When you have succesfully mated a pair, their offspring are then fertile and a new species emerges. Though this is not evoloution as the original species are unchanged. Its just cross breeding.

Saying we come from apes is not a problem i have, thats middle ground away from the real issue. Its the whole, we come from bacteria which appeared from nowhere argument that i have trouble accepting as fact without evidence to support it. You see if that didn't happen then Darwins theory is irrelevant, if it did happen then the theory stands firm.

As i asked earlier, what did the bacteria evolve from? It is the one issue that will tumble darwin or make him. I find it difficult to accept as truth that life just appeared from nowhere for no reason. A bit of magic in an unmagical theory. It is not consistent of Darwins theory and if it was true then darwins theory would not be consistent with the origin of life. Darwin says everything evolves from something. Until you get to the root of it then it stops with nowhere to go.

The theory works going backwards from now. But does not work if you start at the beginning.

 

[British Red]

..<snip>
the truly disturbing part for people that refuse to believe that man came from apes is .....

This is absoultely NOT a dig at Firecrest.

Right, got that out of the way

I just wanted to point out an interesting choice of phrase in that (erudite and interesting) post

"refuse to believe"

I don't think that people "refuse to believe" something. They simply don't believe it or are not convinced one way or the other and reserve the right to question and challenge.

To my mind using phrases like "refuse to believe" implies some willful and deliberate awkwardness. It could equally be applied as "refuse to believe in God" or "refuse to believe that Marmite is nice". Its emotive and I suspect why sometimes these types of debates become heated. I suspect that rarely do people "refuse to believe" they just plain don't. In the same way that people aren't Climate Change "deniers" (a phrase associated with holocaust deniers - at least in my mind) they simply aren't convinced.

Now this may be seen as a failure on their part to comprehend. I believe the onus is on the person advancing the argument to convince and persuade. If they fail to convince, it is a failure on their part, not on the part of the person who was, and remains, unconvinced.

Again, for the record, I could have picked phrases frequently used by any number of contributors and I used this one for illustrative purposes only - no dig implict or explicit!

Red

 

[Tadpole]

I disagree; the ability to &#8220;refuse to believe&#8221; is down to the person who take all the evidence presented and ignores it. Generally, it is nothing to do with the quality or quantity of the aforementioned evidence, it is down to the persons individual&#8217;s desire not to believe or understand. It almost always involves something related to a faith based understanding of any particular subject, be it religion, politics, mathematics (rather than arithmetic), and fish.

 

[British Red]

Well, we can agree to disagree. To me it implies someone who is frustrated by their inability to sway the opinion of another.

You see I don't think you "refuse to believe" my definition, I think you simply believe a different one.


I have rarely encountered people who "desire not to understand or believe". I have frequently encountered people who believe something different however.

I can accept that people have different beliefs. Indeed I think its inevitable that they will. To have different beliefs, they surely must believe something different.

My world is sufficiently tolerant to accept people of different beliefs. I hope everyones is.

Red

 

[firecrest]

I agree with Tadpole, I once met a man (online!) who "didnt want" to believe in evolution and argued against it for the simple reason that he found a universe void of a creator "terrifying" and he was scared he would lose the will to live if creation was self regulating and evolution correct. That is refusing to believe something because of personal disposition not because the evidence was insuffiecient or the person didnt understand it or believe it.

Refuse is a word when somebody sees the evidence, and the evidence is substancial that "humans are related to apes" is a rational and logical conclusion and yet they "Refuse" to accept the evidence and spend their lives looking for evidence to the contrary, any such evidence` they find they immediately declair disproves evolution in its entirity. a good example of this is the banana theory - that bananas are so well designed for the human hand this disproves evolution, or the peanut butter theory - that if the conditions for new life are just warmth,nutriends and an enclosed environment then new life should spontainsiously appear in every jar of peanut butter. Both ideas are absolutely ludicrous and require the believer to be ignorant and probably willfully so.

 

[Tadpole]

I have been involved in debating online for 16+ years, first on BBs and now on the internet. I&#8217;ve come across people who refuse to believe evidence.
Even geographical/environmental evidence. Things like the height/location of the nearest hill to Nazareth, and the number of Jews living there between 100BCE and 225CE (that would be zero none nil, nada) and yet despite the pages of links and research provided by myself and others, still &#8220;choose to still believe&#8221; that Yehoshua (ben Yosef) was born of parents who lived/were born in Nazareth.

I think those people, like the people who choose to think that it&#8217;s all the fault of {the hidden government, aliens, Zionists, Television mind control, and zombies) &#8220;refuse to believe&#8221;, rather than they &#8220;have not been convinced&#8221;.
YMMV

 

[HillBill]

I agree with Tadpole, I once met a man (online!) who "didnt want" to believe in evolution and argued against it for the simple reason that he found a universe void of a creator "terrifying" and he was scared he would lose the will to live if creation was self regulating and evolution correct. That is refusing to believe something because of personal disposition not because the evidence was insuffiecient or the person didnt understand it or believe it.

Refuse is a word when somebody sees the evidence, and the evidence is substancial that "humans are related to apes" is a rational and logical conclusion and yet they "Refuse" to accept the evidence and spend their lives looking for evidence to the contrary, any such evidence` they find they immediately declair disproves evolution in its entirity. a good example of this is the banana theory - that bananas are so well designed for the human hand this disproves evolution, or the peanut butter theory - that if the conditions for new life are just warmth,nutriends and an enclosed environment then new life should spontainsiously appear in every jar of peanut butter. Both ideas are absolutely ludicrous and require the believer to be ignorant and probably willfully so.

My questioning about all this, is not refusal to believe, any more than it is willing acceptance of someone elses ideas. Yes there is evidence that we are related to apes, i have no problem with that. I do not even refute it, we can check with genetic profiling etc So the proof is there. I will accept the proof of it too as it is something that can be proven now. No such proof however, exists of how bacteria came about and that it turned into us and everything else. Evoloution in the sense of ape and man is reasonable with the evidence.

But what did the ape evolve from? Where is the evidence of that? It is possible for inter specie breeding to be responsible for us too.

An intoxicated neanderthal mistaking a chimp for his hairy mrs maybe.

 

[Tadpole]

But what did the ape evolve from? Where is the evidence of that? It is possible for inter specie breeding to be responsible for us too.

Page 65 hold the answer