Yeah, while I understand why creationists like ID (as a stealth attack), it confuses me that they'd subscribe to a theory that is wholly incompatible with creationism.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^ShakaUVM:

Wonderfully interesting, but it actually makes the case for ID instead of evolution. Think about it -- the code has a teleological goal set to make clocks. As the machines evolve, they will always eventually end up as people (sorry, clocks) even though the underlying processes appear to be random.

Not that you're really around anymore to respond to me, but you're hitting on a point that really confuses me about the people who seem upset about and/or opposed to the theory of evolution.

That is to say, there's nothing about evolution that's incompatible with the idea of having a divine designer, provided you're willing to concede exactly the ground you do -- that the Designer didn't draw up the blueprint for human beings specifically, so much as the Designer drew up a universe with natural laws that inevitably lead to something like us coming about.

To some degree I understand creationism more than I do "intelligent design". Creationism is clearly based on some desire to interpret Biblical texts as some sort of literal, historical account of how things came to be as they are. I don't understand what niche "intelligent design" fills, either from the POV of scientific reasoning (e.g. does it provide for better prediction of any phenomena?), nor from a theological one, especially since it's supposedly not a theological artifice.

To someone like me, it seems like its only purpose is to try to create political pretext for teaching students religion in science classrooms.

>> ^ShakaUVM:

Wonderfully interesting, but it actually makes the case for ID instead of evolution. Think about it -- the code has a teleological goal set to make clocks. As the machines evolve, they will always eventually end up as people (sorry, clocks) even though the underlying processes appear to be random.

Not that you're really around anymore to respond to me, but you're hitting on a point that really confuses me about the people who seem upset about and/or opposed to the theory of evolution.

That is to say, there's nothing about evolution that's incompatible with the idea of having a divine designer, provided you're willing to concede exactly the ground you do -- that the Designer didn't draw up the blueprint for human beings specifically, so much as the Designer drew up a universe with natural laws that inevitably lead to something like us coming about.

To some degree I understand creationism more than I do "intelligent design". Creationism is clearly based on some desire to interpret Biblical texts as some sort of literal, historical account of how things came to be as they are. I don't understand what niche "intelligent design" fills, either from the POV of scientific reasoning (e.g. does it provide for better prediction of any phenomena?), nor from a theological one, especially since it's supposedly not a theological artifice.

To someone like me, it seems like its only purpose is to try to create political pretext for teaching students religion in science classrooms.

>> ^bluecliff:

the only problem with evolution (and I have no problem with IT)is that you substitute it, as this video implies, with a theory for the origin of life.
And the only problem I see is that people use the term evolution to mean a proces of change which has a direction - i.e. more and more complex forms of life.
Etymology and historical meaning
The word stems from the Latin term evolutio meaning "unfolding" and prior to the late 1800s was confined to referring to goal-directed, pre-programmed processes such as embryological development. A pre-programmed task, as in a military maneuver, using this definition, may be termed an "evolution." By the 20th century, the dominant concept associated with the word "evolution" was biological evolution, which had originally been known as "transmutation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28term%29#_note-devolving

So humans could theoretically "evolve" into "lower forms" of life.




That is happening as we speak.

I am so stealing that. I think I have a worse one though.

My signature joke: I always keep it handy.

In reply to this comment by maatc:
Q: What does an agnostic, dyslexic insomniac do at night?
A: Laying awake, wondering if there is a dog.

Human Meddling in the process of natural selection disgusts me to no end.

Natural selection is a hard thing.

I feel that if an animal cannot live long enough to reproduce, humans included, then it obviously does not pass on it's genes ergo; it does not pass the test of nature.

My opinion of selective breeders is, they disgust me on both a guttural and rational level. These hoity toity rich white people base their whole breeding on outdated and unscientific opinion on how a dog should look

I see a strong working dog as the peek of its breed. I see a show dog as a farce of nature.

Pure breeding is not something to be liked. Biodiversity and Genetic Diversity is something that nature naturally seeks, and it is proven time and again that breeding with a small gene pool with no diversity will ultimately lead to extinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

I also find the Eugenicist argument about Pure Bred people completely warped.

My knowledge of biology is only as a hobby, and maybe a slight obsession. It was my favorite class in High School, and would probably have been in college had I majored in it.

On a more sentimental note an old German Shepard or Deutscher Schäferhund of mine died of complication that resulted from Hip Displasia. Here is a quote from the wikipedia on German Shepards:

In 1899, Von Stephanitz was attending a dog show when he was shown a dog named Hektor Linksrhein. Hektor was the product of many generations of selective breeding and completely fulfilled what Von Stephanitz believed a working dog should be. He was pleased with the strength of the dog and was so taken by the animal's intelligence and loyalty, that he purchased it immediately.

A genetic disease that is so common in German Shepherds that one could, speculatively argue that it is the cause of selective breeding. After watching the dog degrade into dragging it's own hind legs around for weeks, and then shitting on herself regularly, because she couldn't lift herself up to shit properly, it was time to euthanize the dog. I can't help but wonder what the breed would look like if it had a bit of diversity.

It is wondrous to think what the world would be like if humans had no developed the current human brain, and still only had the reptile brain.

For a unique understanding of evolution and natural selection read some of these:


The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1976. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.
he Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009. ISBN 0-593-06173-X.
The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1986. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.


The Blind Watchmaker was the most complicated read in my opinion.

>> ^dag:
What if evolution doesn't respect symmetry as it does on earth? Most of our creatures are either bilaterally or radially symmetrical- I'm thinking of something with one big frickin' arm on one side and little tiny one on the other - something like Trogdor - or just realized - the Moties from The Mote in God's Eye.


The Moties were inbred mutants, not non-symetric evolution. Pfft. Having a watchmaker rebuild the engine in my Mustang might be fun though.

1. For The New Intellectual, by Ayn Rand
2. The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand
3. The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins
4. The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins
5. The Nature of Consciousness, by Alan Watts

>> ^MINK
so give me a handout to develop some philosophy and social structure and culture. tell me how that works in a free market.

Heres the prescription I would give to (begin to) cure the philosophical deficiency of 21st century culture:
"The Blind Watchmaker" my Richard Dawkins
"The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins
"For The New Intellectual" by Ayn Rand
"The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand
"Free To Choose" by Milton Friedman
"Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt
"The Art of Thinking" by Vincent Ruggiero
"The Nature of Consciousness" by Alan Watts

Two years ago I was just as against the free market as you or anyone else was. It was only possible for me to accept these ideas once I had changed my philosophical, societal, and cultural perspective. Philosophy is not bought or sold on ebay, it is taught in schools, in interactions with friends, and from parents.

These conversations are my attempt to share philosophy, maybe I'm not very successful...but I'm just some random guy I'm no Alan Watts.

Totally bogus. We are promised ten incontrovertible pieces of evidence that evolution is wrong, yet all of them hinge on believing the Bible is something more than a dietary guide.

The first minute is a set of testimonials (from people who don't sound very highly educated). Science isn't really the result of a plebiscite. It isn't like the law, either, where you are right until proven wrong.

The bottom line is that no self-respecting scientist would claim that evolution is the ONLY explanation of how we got here - but as far as the evidence goes, so far it is the BEST explanation. If it turns out to be wrong, then ID still has to be supported by evidence - it isn't automatically correct.

Then the narrator spends four minutes telling us we will hear the facts, and we should judge for ourselves. She claims the Bible is completely trustworthy, based on archaeological a prophetic evidence - except it is not. Sure there is some archaeological evidence, but let's see the evidence for the Garden of Eden. Parts of it are clearly historical, but parts seem to be diet restrictions, more than anything. As for prophecy, go ask the Late Great Hal Lindsey about that.

The film goes on to paint God as a rather horrible person, causing most all the suffering and tragedy on earth. This is an interesting concept in itself. The purpose seems to be to threaten you into believing their line of reasoning (NOT making up your own mind!), or incurring His wrath.

The film uses the long-disproven watch-watchmaker argument, now in terms of a creation-creatOR argument. As for the $250,000 prize that hasn't been claimed, I'll give $1 million to anyone who can offer a shred of evidence that the Bible is the word of God. But _I_ get to be the judge, and you can forget about me accepting your evidence. The fact Dr. Hoven doesn't ACCEPT the evidence doesn't mean it's not there.

When Darwin visited the Galapagos islands 150 years ago, he cataloged seven species of finches there. Now, in just a century and a half, there are thirteen species on the islands, all native - definite PROOF of new species. But, of course this is ignored by the video.

Finally, the very act of referring to the "Myth of Evolution", the film is putting conclusions into our minds, just what the first four minutes said it would NOT do - we were supposed to make up our own minds, remember?

2) I don't believe in evolution. OK, I agree in general, but does it explain what it aims to accurately and completely? I very much doubt it. In fact I'd be amazed if the original work wasn't mostly discredited by now, just like much of Newton's work, Einstein's work and so on. Darwin's work was certainly a big step in the evolution of knowledge

Why wonder when you can know? I would bet dollars to donuts you don't even understand how evolution works. Reading a wikipedia article on evolution and believing you understand the theory is like.....reading a wikipedia article on quantum mechanics and believing you understand the theory. And no, high school biology does not give a sufficient explanation of the theory...

Atheist attack pack:
How evolution began: "Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker"
How evolution proceeded, in theory: "Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene"
How evolution proceeded, with empirical examples: "Richard Dawkins: Ancestor's Tale"
Why you don't have to be afraid of evolution: "Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion"
How religion began, and proceeded: "Daniel Dennett: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"
Why you shouldn't believe in religion: "Sam Harris: Letter to a Christian Nation"

If your religion/current beliefs on evolution can survive that reading list......hats off to your level of conviction/faith/denial.

Ah ok... thanks man.. and great posts.. it was nice to watch them this morning.

In reply to this comment by Majortomyorke:
Apparantly the video I submitted about Evolution being a blind watchmaker had already been submitted by Theaceofclubs (his version), you may want to update your playlist with his original submission.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Evolution-IS-a-Blind-Watchmaker
dupe *discard

i love the blind watchmaker syndrome - it appears that what originally looked like the 4 limbs turned out not to be the means of locomotion at all.

His books are quite fascinating. I highly recommend The Blind Watchmaker, because in it, he does an excellent job of explaining precisely how it is possible for life to arrive at its current state of complexity without any interference from a "Supreme Being." Also, because it isn't as preachy or blatantly anti-god as The God Delusion is.

I don't subscribe to Evolution, and I don't agree with Intelligent Design. Because we just don't know enough. And really it doesn't matter. Oh I'll have people disagree with that I'm sure, but honestly it's a bit to ridiculous to say: "This is how it all happened!" Because if history is ANY guide at all it will prove to us that we need to go back to the drawing board.

Science is a cumulative method, not a dogma, I know its been said over and over, but read it again because its important, yes, historically we have been lots of wrong, and indeed, there is much we do not, and cannot know, but there is actually something to the word cumulative, it means that as we build on what we have, we get better. Please try to understand the word "Theory" as what it means in the scientific sense and not the common language sense. Secondly, Yes we have been wrong before, no question, but this has its limits, there are some things that just are not going to fundamentally change, because the predictions and observations are just too many, for too long to make any kind of sense without a given theory.

Evolution is a fact. this is not going to change, not in a million years, not ever, how can I be so cock-sure? because of evidence, overwhelming amounts of it, every skeleton, fossil ever dug up, every dna test ever taken , daily use of the theory in the areas of medicine,biology and even geology, things that wouldnt make sense without evolution, science that can point to DIRECT benefits from using evolution actively, The applications are seemingly endless.

Scientific theory is not guesswork, nothing demonstrates this louder than Oppenheimers application of Einsteins gues... uh, I mean, theories

You cant make bigger bombs from an understanding of evolution(to my knowledge) so we dont have the same kind of explosive application to show to in biology, but as I said, its still in daily use in medicine, for instance.

Please read an entire book on evolution, I can guarantee its gonna be worth it, Dawkins is an obvious starting point, I recommend "The selfish Gene, Blind watchmaker or Climbing mount improbable, but "The Ancestor's Tale" is even better, but it ticks in at 650 pages, so you'd might want to start with a smaller warm-up After reading TSG (and again after Ancestor's Tale!), it was like I had seen the world anew, every ant on the floor, every nature show, and hell, just looking at PEOPLE, it all shines in a different light..