Your refutations were (in order)

"This guy believes in evolution"

"We can never prove anything about the fossil record"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is crazy"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is a probable creationist"

Yeah, amazing refutations..which you got from a website, while calling me out on doing the same thing. Evolutionists, biologists, palentologists etc DO dispute the theory of evolution..you were right though..the ones I provided were kind of weak. You'll have an infinitely harder time refuting these:

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate.

After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:

I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.

Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."


L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."


William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.


"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."


Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257


"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."


Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)


"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory


"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2


"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."


Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.


"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."


Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83


"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."


Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.


"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."


Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"


Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67


"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."


Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)


... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."


Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).







>> ^MaxWilder:
What the hell are you talking about? I refuted every one of your quotes point by point! I provided links to further information. The whole point was that your "evidence" of paleontologists speaking out against evolution was utter bullshit!
The only one where I discredited the source was from some no-name Swedish biologist that nobody takes seriously. Every other source was either out of context (meaning you are not understanding the words properly), or out of date (meaning that science has progressed a little since the '70s).
You have got your head so far up your ass that you are not even coherent now.
But you know what might change my mind? If you cut&paste some more out of context, out of date quotes. You got hendreds of 'em! </sarcasm>
>> ^shinyblurry:
So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source.

(No, I don’t suspect that you are anti-research, I suspect that you don’t value research or the scientific method as much as people should. If you did, you would find no value in faith. I suspect that you don’t read many science books, if any. I suspect that you don’t follow the most recent information coming out of neural science research labs. I suspect that the only research that you are primarily interested in is the kind of research that supports your pre-existing idea of the nature of reality. I suspect that you don’t actually understand the scientific method. I suspect that you’ve never read “The Demon Haunted World”. I suspect that you don’t really understand causation verses correlation. I suspect that you generally aren’t very skeptically minded and that your definition of “evidence” is loosely constructed. I suspect that you aren’t actually doing anything to falsify your beliefs. I suspect that you identify with your beliefs to the degree that if realized that they weren’t true you would feel a sense of loss of personal identity. I suspect that you value any answer, even if it’s potentially incorrect, over no answer at all. I suspect that you would rather believe in “spirit” than to disbelieve it because, as I suspect, it makes you feel good and it gives you the answer that you want. I suspect that you like the writings of Deepak Chopra and that you probably like movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". I suspect that you have very little respect for truth and that your beliefs are more about perception rather than what can be known to be factual.

What is ego? I don’t know. I don’t study neurological brain functions as much as I wish I had the time for. The thing is, I’m not the one providing a bunch of nonsense answer about how it’s some sort of separate entity apart from myself, or that it has its own wants and desires part from my own. The burden of proof rests on the person making those claims.

What is reality? From Wikipedia “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.” I would use that definition. I would also say that we absolutely can know what is real vs. what is not real by performing rigorous investigations into phenomenon that we observe and that during these investigations we use the scientific method to keep us from lying to ourselves. Contrary to the beliefs of people of “spirituality” and post-modernists, there are things that we can call objectively real and there is such thing as truth, that knowing the truth requires hardcore investigation and that once you know the truth, at least to a very high degree of certainty, you can know what is not true. By definition, reality is the collection of things and phenomenon that are real. Things like fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, gods, etc, aren't known to be real, they don't really exist, they aren't a part of reality. Sure, the idea of those things is real, but those things themselves aren't.

What is consciousness? It sounds as if you’re asking me what consciousness is as if consciousness is a thing. Consciousness isn’t a thing; it’s a bi-product of certain biological systems and it can be affected and manipulated by various means. It’s a collective brain state. Consciousness doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe and we’re interacting with it and even if that were true, there isn’t any actual evidence of that being the case. In humans, it is just the sense of awareness of one’s self with respect to others and of the relationship between the mind and the world that we interact with. You talk about consciousness as if it’s some sort of mystical force; it just sounds like magical thinking, attributing animal qualities to the universe. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. This notion that consciousness and the ego are somehow “outside” of us or separate from who we “are” is just a fantasy similar to fairies and unicorns. I know people that believe in actual fairies, the kind with wings, who control certain aspects of our lives. I put spirituality in the same exact camp as belief in fairies, there just isn’t any evidence that it’s actually true.

Who am I? I could say that I am who I define myself to be based on what information that I have about myself combined with the model of myself that is retained in other people’s minds whom I interact with and also the collective actions that I’ve taken and continue to take. It just seems like you’re adding a layer of mysticism over the nature of humans, as if there is something magical about humans over other primates, or other carbon based life forms. Again, there is nothing mystical or magical about who people are.

The reason why I suspect that you are not scientifically minded is because you’re prepared to dismiss ongoing research which may or may not be conclusive but you’re willing to provide your own answers and form your own beliefs based on your own subjective experiences. What good are those answers if they have no basis in reality. Just because there is no definitive consensus doesn’t mean that you can substitute in your own beliefs. Doing that, in and of itself, is irrational. Everything that you’ve said that you believe in has its basis in magical and wishful thinking, not in science, even though you're using scientific terms (incorrectly I might add). If there isn’t a conclusive answer, than why make one up? The only thing that individualized answers to these questions offers to me is evidence of how scientifically illiterate people actually are. Scientifically literate and rational people don’t answer questions that they don’t have objective and research driven answers to and if they do propose an answer when there isn’t something they can be objectively highly certain of, they submit it as conjecture, a mere hypothesis, very little more than an inconclusive guess.

P.S. I agree that Freud is now useless in the light of research from cognitive sciences. The reason for this is primarily because his conclusions were based on subjective and anecdotal information.

P.P.S. In the other comment you talked about your definition of god as being all of the particles and the material in the universe, basically, you're saying that the universe is god. Why not just call the universe the universe rather than attaching something unnecessary to it. I realize that you probably like to look at it that way, that the universe is god but that really isn't necessary and in a way, it isn't very helpful either.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
do you suspect that i am somehow anti-research?
on the contrary my friend.research is the very thing that proves my premise concerning our curiosity and drive to know.the very "spirit" or essence of what i am trying to convey.
do you think that i am fearful that maybe research and a desire for the truth may prove my thesis wrong?
why would i be fearful?
i make only claims of faith not of certitude.
i hold no illusions that my faith can be certified by any verifiable means and hence a main reason why i do not espouse some hidden truth and force others to respect or believe my conclusions.
thats religions job,not mine.

let me ask you these questions:
what is ego?
what is reality?
what is consciousness?
WHO are YOU?

please do not answer with a scientific paper because none of these questions have been answered adequately.they are an ongoing investigation and there has been no definative concensus.
but they are worthy questions,maybe the most important of all questions.
i guess that is relative.
i find them to be very important questions and the answers on an individual basis reveal much about that person.

ps:freud was a cunt.avoid using him as a basis for the ego.his work concerning that particular dynamic has already been eviscerated.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
@chilaxe, I agree, they shouldn't cost society anything. But isn't that the problem with the leftist agenda? They want socialized medicine so they can then tell you what is good for you and force you to obey. There's no freedom in that. I can one day see a society where exercise is compulsory for all men and women, young and old. I believe Hitler wanted the same thing. There, I Godwined it..

My sense of libertarianism and the overall political picture is this:
Conservatives like order.
Liberals like a soft world.
Libertarians like meritocracy.

In that sense, libertarians' principle of "freedom" is a means to an end (meritocracy), not an end in itself.

Freedom as an absolute principle also seems to have some limitations... Based on my experience in the cognitive sciences, I'd say it's very clear that the masses don't have brains like you and I, and they need to be guided in the sense of not giving them easy access to things that are 100% bad for them and the world, like cigarettes.

Also, the more controlled society becomes, the more people get uncomfortable with it, so it doesn't seem like the modern world is very likely to experience a slippery slope 50 years down the road based on small increments of increased control that make sense in the present day.

I think many of the shortcomings of the education system are shortcomings on the part of the academics who design the curriculums. Problem solving in the sense of how to optimally manage our intelligence would be a great thing to teach. Even PhDs don't get taught that, though.

Teaching these areas would be a great start : Cognitive science, decision theory, intelligence research, game theory, behavioral economics, risk management, cognitive bias, and rationalism.

(Wikipedia links on those subjects are here: http://www.videosift.com/video/For-all-my-Athiest-friends-on-The-Sift?loadcomm=1#comment-744091)

I also highly recommend Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. (People who like reading books on their computer could find the PDF here)

A very enjoyable read, dag. I actually study linguistics and programming for my bachelor in Cognitive Sciences, and I'm really looking forward to see what possibilities lies there.

The record for longest human lifespan is currently held by Jeanne Calment, who lived to 122. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

She did that with 20th century technology, and she wasn't even an intellectual or highly motivated.

We've already entered the age of organ regeneration... growing new organs from our own cell... and it's already saving lives. I think it will pass regulatory hurdles and come in to widespread usage within 10 or 20 years.

Genome sequencing is down from $250k a year ago to $5k now (http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006527.html). In 10 or 20 years most people will have their genomes sequenced, and medicine will no longer be a crap shoot.

Experts say that most drugs, whatever the disease, work for only about half the people who take them. Not only is much of the nation’s approximately $300 billion annual drug spending wasted, but countless patients are being exposed unnecessarily to side effects.

[Conventional] studies tend to be “one size fits all,” with the winning treatment recommended for everybody. Personalized medicine would go beyond that by determining which drug is best for which patient, rather than continuing to treat everyone the same in hopes of benefiting the fortunate few. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30gene.html?ex=1388379600&en=a3e1de30bab852a6&ei=5124&partner=facebook&exprod=facebook

If you die in 2050, that sounds like a waste, because I think it's highly unlikely I won't live into the 2100s. Imagine where technology will be in 2100.

------------------------------
Re: 'world of criminals'

I think the idea of humans as possessing 'personhood' is a simplistic model. The deeper you dig in the cognitive sciences and the human sciences in general, the more clear it becomes that human thought outputs and behavioral outputs are just the result of deterministic mechanisms. Looking at humans as 'persons' isn't looking at a deep enough level of detail... and it makes us take things 'personally' -- as if the decision agents (in a game theory sense) we're interacting with are 'persons.' Humans want to be good... they just have simplistic, unmotivated brains.

Change the inputs, and the outputs will change. Embryo selection is borderline-practical today, and it's increasingly being used. My prediction is by 2030 5% of births (in wealthy countries) will be using it (for cosmetic and temperament improvements - e.g. reduced addictive behavior, greater motivation, less 'social learners' and more 'infovores'), and by 2060 60% of births will be using it. When those generations reach 25 years old, they'll be starting to influence society, which will be 2055 and 2085, respectively.

However, by 2055, I think we'll have neurotechnology that achieves most of the large goals of neurogenetic change: next-generation neuropharmaceuticals, neuroimplants, and changes to the organization of our neural tissue using stem cells.

I believe the future is humanistic and humanitarian. And the world is incompetent, waiting for us to influence the arc of history.

IMHO, anyway.

What do you think?


------------------------------

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
I think we're going to miss SENS by at least a generation. The way I treat my body I'm expecting to die around 40.

Doesn't it gnaw at you that, living in a world mostly populated by criminals, any good you do will primarily benefit them?

In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
Gorillaman, we're young enough that we have a decent chance of living to see the fulfillment of SENS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey).

Doesn't that make you want to do something with your life that's ingenious and constructive, helping out the common good, instead of just pursuing vendettas?

What I mean is that I think these areas are fascinating! Cognitive science, decision theory, intelligence research, game theory, behavioral economics, risk management, cognitive bias, and rationalism.

I disagree with anyone that says chips like this won't be useful for solving AI. AI is all about data and machine learning. And most of the operations that deal with that data are trivially parallelizable. I'm perfectly happy with this trend as long as it keeps Moore's law marching along.

I agree with gwiz665 except for the part about (computational) Neural Networks. Neural networks are just one of a million function approximators. Nearest neighbor is my favorite. Support vector machines are the best for many applications. People from brain and cognitive sciences tend to employ neural networks because they find it to be a useful analog to the brain, even if it doesn't actually work well and isn't actually similar to the brain.

fair enough. Chomsky has definitely said some bone-headed things, though I know him more for his work in cognitive science. But I was really just trying to keep the list balanced.