Dimensions Forums  
Home Register Premium Membership Health Issues Market Place Big Fashion

Go Back   Dimensions Forums > Discussion > Main Dimensions Board



Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-25-2017, 05:25 AM   #26
jakub
Visitor
 
jakub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 146
jakub can now be the recipient of "two cans" jokesjakub can now be the recipient of "two cans" jokesjakub can now be the recipient of "two cans" jokes
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracii View Post
Darwin's Theory and general theory of evolution is too full of holes to use it as a basis for discussion
I can't believe what I'm reading...
jakub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2017, 03:35 PM   #27
TwoSwords
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 456
TwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging in
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakub View Post
I can't believe what I'm reading...
It is a bit of a shock at first, especially if you've only heard the one-sided arguments of the typical college science textbook.
TwoSwords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2017, 07:23 AM   #28
jakub
Visitor
 
jakub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 146
jakub can now be the recipient of "two cans" jokesjakub can now be the recipient of "two cans" jokesjakub can now be the recipient of "two cans" jokes
Default

Yeah right. The shock is that somebody in current times can even think that, maybe earth is flat - who knows... (maybe some rapper is going to answer that).
jakub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2017, 07:27 AM   #29
TwoSwords
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 456
TwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging in
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakub View Post
Yeah right. The shock is that somebody in current times can even think that, maybe earth is flat - who knows... (maybe some rapper is going to answer that).
A large number of biologists in biology conferences apparently think that, so I'm not going to argue with them.
TwoSwords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2017, 04:34 PM   #30
John Smith
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 171
John Smith does more than just post hot picsJohn Smith does more than just post hot picsJohn Smith does more than just post hot pics
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by olly5764 View Post
Making the bold assumption here that we all agree in some way with Darwin's theory, we all know that certain traits will cause a species to die out or survive.
Now all of us are educated people and we all know that obesity can cause certain problems, heart failure, diabetes etc, however some people seem to suffer from these at 250 - 300 pounds whilst others seem free of them at 500 or more pounds.
My question is this, do you think with the world's bulging waist lines, weak hearts and other such issues will evolve out of the human race leaving us a stronger yet fatter species? Or Not?
Neither really the one or the other. People still naturally adapts themselves through various environmental conditions over generations regarding their tolerance through it, therefore at some point there could being over time some people developping a resilience to see their health spiral out into disarray even after have gained a markedly amount of weight: but unless to be either genetically-enhanced, granted by body-enhancing cryptic capabilities or being born a somewhat genetic singularity, I highly doubt that the human race is predestined someday to mutate into a breed of roly-poly superhumans.
John Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2017, 04:40 PM   #31
John Smith
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 171
John Smith does more than just post hot picsJohn Smith does more than just post hot picsJohn Smith does more than just post hot pics
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracii View Post
Darwin's Theory and general theory of evolution is too full of holes to use it as a basis for discussion
Every single thing, for mere hypothesis to which most people perceive as "reality" contents their holes. So I am not surprized that a mere theory developped nearly two centuries ago when modern Sciences weren't that refined then that things like Spiritism or Scientific Racism were predominant in this society, could have indeed his lot of holes regarding a XXIth-century viewpoint, same as for most everything .

But, following this same way of thought, even our mere presence here is philosophically, pragmatically, forethoughtfully speaking way absurb.
John Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2017, 04:48 PM   #32
John Smith
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 171
John Smith does more than just post hot picsJohn Smith does more than just post hot picsJohn Smith does more than just post hot pics
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoSwords View Post
A large number of biologists in biology conferences apparently think that, so I'm not going to argue with them.
Which "large number" , specifically (since we are roughly seven billions and half of human souls, then that the number of specialists in biology across the world may easilyy neighbouring the ten million) ?

Also, we all know those "large number" of doctors still thinking religiously that being skinny is the only healthy way of life then that being fat is a potential risk for laziness, hedonism, diabetes then heart diseases when most everybody in society run a more-or-less hedonistic first, the that scientifically speaking there still aren't authentic proofs of pragmatic correlation between obesity (even abdominal obesity) and all those aforementioned illnesses.
It still doesn't stop a lot of ignorant, god-fearing folks to believe to this crap since decades.
John Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2017, 06:54 PM   #33
TwoSwords
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 456
TwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging in
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
It still doesn't stop a lot of ignorant, god-fearing folks to believe to this crap since decades.
Admittedly, biology is my own weakest subject, but I'm fairly certain that the contrary evidence of the fossil record, or the countless "missing links" in the evolutionary chain, or the incomplete outline that neo-Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory still consists of (I.E.: even some of the greatest biologists in the world will admit to not understanding how it works,) all serve as adequate cause for doubting that natural selection is an adequate explanatory hypothesis to explain biological diversity as it is today.

Your reply has not addressed any of these issues, or any of the examples that I gave in my past replies. In fact, all you've done here is to dismiss the theory's detractors, based on straw man assumptions about their points of view.

That's not adequate, first, because it's an argument ad hominem, but of course, also because of the simple fact that it takes more to refute a position than just treating it dismissively.

If, on the other hand, you were genuinely unaware of the information I posted in my past replies, please go back and take another look at it. Maybe you'll learn about some of the people involved in biology and evolution today, like James Tour, who performs nano-machine operations on living cells, and has issued an open invitation to any evolutionary expert to teach him how macro-evolution is supposed to work, or Francisco Ayala; one of the greatest evolutionary biologists on Earth, who also happens to be a "god-fearing folk."

Learning is fun, and more people should do it.
TwoSwords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 04:50 PM   #34
John Smith
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 171
John Smith does more than just post hot picsJohn Smith does more than just post hot picsJohn Smith does more than just post hot pics
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoSwords View Post
Admittedly, biology is my own weakest subject, but I'm fairly certain that the contrary evidence of the fossil record, or the countless "missing links" in the evolutionary chain, or the incomplete outline that neo-Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory still consists of (I.E.: even some of the greatest biologists in the world will admit to not understanding how it works,) all serve as adequate cause for doubting that natural selection is an adequate explanatory hypothesis to explain biological diversity as it is today.

Your reply has not addressed any of these issues, or any of the examples that I gave in my past replies. In fact, all you've done here is to dismiss the theory's detractors, based on straw man assumptions about their points of view.

That's not adequate, first, because it's an argument ad hominem, but of course, also because of the simple fact that it takes more to refute a position than just treating it dismissively.

If, on the other hand, you were genuinely unaware of the information I posted in my past replies, please go back and take another look at it. Maybe you'll learn about some of the people involved in biology and evolution today, like James Tour, who performs nano-machine operations on living cells, and has issued an open invitation to any evolutionary expert to teach him how macro-evolution is supposed to work, or Francisco Ayala; one of the greatest evolutionary biologists on Earth, who also happens to be a "god-fearing folk."

Learning is fun, and more people should do it.
You have right: biology truly is your weakest.
John Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2017, 12:36 AM   #35
quantumbits
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: US, OR
Posts: 55
quantumbits can now change their title
Default

What about epigenetics.How might it tie into this? I'm not a strongly knowledgeable person on this subject, so I googled and will put a link here:
https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/what-is-epigenetics/

The first time I bumped into this topic I was reading a study about bullying. Forgive me, but I can't remember it clearly as I'd like. What I do remember is they were looking at possible epigenetic effects of bullying. So a boy grows up being bullied and hten later has a child. They were looking to see if maybe the father passed on something to their child. And--if I recall right--they believed something was passed on--or changed.

I agree with others that if a person isn't killed before reproductive age then their traits will carry on. However, this doesn't preclude us from finding people with special genes or gene configurations particularly friendly to obesity. This might not be a great example, but it might be a start:
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/apr...le-edged-genes
Quote:
Guevara-Aguirre and Laron have differing views when it comes to connecting Laron syndrome with another deadly disease: diabetes. Although Laron has diagnosed diabetes in a handful of his patients, Guevara-Aguirre says he has never seen a case of diabetes among Laron patients in Ecuador, even though their weight should put them at high risk. In their 2011 paper, he and Longo reported that of the 99 Laron patients they studied, none had diabetes despite the prevalence of obesity in the group. In contrast, among the patients’ relatives, 5 percent of deaths were from diabetes.

Normally, people who are overweight face a greater risk for insulin resistance, a condition in which the body does not use insulin effectively to shuttle glucose into liver, fat, and muscle cells. To compensate, the pancreas secretes more insulin. In some cases, the amount of glucose in the bloodstream overwhelms the pancreas’s ability to keep up; in these cases, insulin resistance progresses to pre-diabetes or full-blown diabetes.

For people with Laron syndrome, a different set of rules seems to apply. Instead of being insulin resistant, Guevara-Aguirre’s patients seem to be especially sensitive to insulin, which may protect them against diabetes. He and Longo have recently conducted glucose-tolerance and insulin tests to explore how patients’ sensitivity to insulin affects their diabetes risk. They expect results later this year.

If the genetic mutation that gives people with Laron syndrome their short stature also protects them against two of the most pernicious diseases of aging, diabetes and cancer, then it prompts two obvious questions: What other diseases might the mutation protect against, and do people who carry the mutation in fact live longer than their unaffected peers?
And regarding insulin, it's not just how many calories we take in, but maybe when/how we take them in:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/294226.php

In the study, the mice received the same amount of calories per day, but gorging it all in one meal was shown to create prediabetic conditions, spurred on by insulin resistance. This led to more belly fat and inflammation. Longterm, this might increase risk of heart disease or type-2 diabetes.
quantumbits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 09:29 PM   #36
hommecreux
Attack of the twinkies.
 
hommecreux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Indiana
Posts: 64
hommecreux does more than just post hot picshommecreux does more than just post hot picshommecreux does more than just post hot pics
Default

Wow. Reading the last 2 pages of insanity has been, if nothing else, fun, yet concerning.

1. I can't believe people are trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution, seeing as we understand, and have more evidence for the theory of evolution than we do for gravity, or pretty much any other scientific theory in existence.


2. I think that they human body evolved (yes, evolved), to it's current form due to selection pressures that range from being a social species and having a need to procreate, to the need for a body shape and size that was/is best acclimated for the environment that we exist in, all the way down to the gravity of the earth. We don't have computer simulations that could possibly take into account every single variable that led to the shape of the human body as it is today and we are currently in a transitional form that is still being shaped by selection pressures. So it might be a moot point to try to argue for against the proposition that fat is going to drive the next stage of evolution, as it is only one of many variables. Until pretty recently natural selection pressures shaped the human form to best fit the needs of what the whole species needs, and unfortunately, there is a reason why people of size have more health problems. WE WEREN'T MEANT TO BE THIS FAT! Myself included! However, as selection pressures change, along with the environments that we build for ourselves, social structures, and possibly planet that we exist on changes, we could find that being slightly fatter, in say, a zero gravity environment might be beneficial. But right now, with our current genetics and limitations on technology it isn't healthy or beneficial to the species for us to be so overweight.



3.Point in case - There's a reason there are so many threads devoted to troubles with having intercourse, people want to have sex, and can't or have problems with the act, that would/could be a pretty big problem in the future if everyone on the planet is 300lbs +.
hommecreux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2018, 05:04 PM   #37
UserNameName
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 28
UserNameName can now be the recipient of "two cans" jokesUserNameName can now be the recipient of "two cans" jokes
Default

I can't believe how people still resist evolution. You want to tell me that God used evolution to help populate the Earth? Fine by me. Evolution and religion are far from mutually exclusive. If I were God, why wouldn't I want to create a nice little mechanism to help perfect my creations? But to say evolution doesn't exist is just absurd.
UserNameName is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2018, 05:24 PM   #38
TwoSwords
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 456
TwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging in
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UserNameName View Post
I can't believe how people still resist evolution. You want to tell me that God used evolution to help populate the Earth? Fine by me. Evolution and religion are far from mutually exclusive. If I were God, why wouldn't I want to create a nice little mechanism to help perfect my creations? But to say evolution doesn't exist is just absurd.
If I recall the substance of the debate, the first person to mention God was the person trying to defend neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Please re-read my points if there's something about them you don't understand. For example, I don't believe I ever said "evolution doesn't exist." I think what I said was that it seems to be an insufficient explanatory hypothesis to explain biological complexity on its own. That's a very different kind of claim.
TwoSwords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 10:52 PM   #39
hommecreux
Attack of the twinkies.
 
hommecreux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Indiana
Posts: 64
hommecreux does more than just post hot picshommecreux does more than just post hot picshommecreux does more than just post hot pics
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoSwords View Post
If I recall the substance of the debate, the first person to mention God was the person trying to defend neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Please re-read my points if there's something about them you don't understand. For example, I don't believe I ever said "evolution doesn't exist." I think what I said was that it seems to be an insufficient explanatory hypothesis to explain biological complexity on its own. That's a very different kind of claim.
If you know of any demonstrable evidence that anything other than selection pressures has shaped human evolution, you know you can pick up your Noble Prize and get millions of dollars in funding from organizations (scientific and religious) for providing the evidence that the whole world is looking for right?

Due to 99% of experts (across essentially all fields that remotely relate to the study of evolution) coming to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation that fits the evidence, follows where the evidence leads, and has been proven in every case, study, and lab experiment; I would love to know what you believe to be insufficient in it's explanatory power, and ability to make demonstrable predictions?
hommecreux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 06:55 AM   #40
TwoSwords
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 456
TwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging in
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
If you know of any demonstrable evidence that anything other than selection pressures has shaped human evolution, you know you can pick up your Noble Prize and get millions of dollars in funding from organizations (scientific and religious) for providing the evidence that the whole world is looking for right?
Natural selection is completely indemonstrable, as is common ancestry. Only descent with modifications can be demonstrated, and that's basically uncontested. I think you're holding contrary theories to a standard of proof that you don't hold evolution to.

Plus, embracing an inadequate theory because you don't know of any adequate ones is just Evolution of the Gaps. You're punting to faith to plug up gaps in the reasoning. That's not valid logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
Due to 99% of experts (across essentially all fields that remotely relate to the study of evolution) coming to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation that fits the evidence, follows where the evidence leads, and has been proven in every case, study, and lab experiment; I would love to know what you believe to be insufficient in it's explanatory power, and ability to make demonstrable predictions?
Firstly, I don't know where you're getting this number from, but it hasn't come up in any of my research on the topic. I found that over 30,000 scientists working in America alone consider Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory to be inadequate or doubtful, so that would mean that America would need over 3 Million scientists at least in the fields of evolutionary biology alone. In fact, the number is closer to 400,000 biologists in all fields combined, and the US is one of the countries where belief in Neo Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is relatively standard, due to its philosophical ramifications.

Secondly, you don't determine the truth or falsehood of a proposition with a head count. That's a philosophical error called the Bandwagon Fallacy.

Finally, you do determine the truth or falsehood of a proposition with a study of the evidence, which is why I presented good evidence against the adequacy of Natural Selection, and so far, that evidence hasn't even been addressed on this thread.
TwoSwords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 07:37 PM   #41
hommecreux
Attack of the twinkies.
 
hommecreux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Indiana
Posts: 64
hommecreux does more than just post hot picshommecreux does more than just post hot picshommecreux does more than just post hot pics
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoSwords View Post
Natural selection is completely indemonstrable, as is common ancestry. Only descent with modifications can be demonstrated, and that's basically uncontested. I think you're holding contrary theories to a standard of proof that you don't hold evolution to.

Plus, embracing an inadequate theory because you don't know of any adequate ones is just Evolution of the Gaps. You're punting to faith to plug up gaps in the reasoning. That's not valid logic.



Firstly, I don't know where you're getting this number from, but it hasn't come up in any of my research on the topic. I found that over 30,000 scientists working in America alone consider Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory to be inadequate or doubtful, so that would mean that America would need over 3 Million scientists at least in the fields of evolutionary biology alone. In fact, the number is closer to 400,000 biologists in all fields combined, and the US is one of the countries where belief in Neo Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is relatively standard, due to its philosophical ramifications.

Secondly, you don't determine the truth or falsehood of a proposition with a head count. That's a philosophical error called the Bandwagon Fallacy.

Finally, you do determine the truth or falsehood of a proposition with a study of the evidence, which is why I presented good evidence against the adequacy of Natural Selection, and so far, that evidence hasn't even been addressed on this thread.
1. If you don't accept that transitional forms exist, and scientists have done controlled experiments showing that speciation occurs; if you don't accept that the theory of evolution makes testable predictions that have evidence proving that the theory is correct; and then you don't recognize that I said the following ---

"Due to 99% of experts (across essentially all fields that remotely relate to the study of evolution) coming to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation that fits the evidence, follows where the evidence leads, and has been proven in every case, study, and lab experiment;"

Best CURRENT explanation. Then you aren't arguing against my point.
And if you want to deal with things in terms of absolutes, then you are dealing in absurdities. We can only deal with the evidence and information derived from the evidence that we currently have and test the theory in every conceivable way. Humanity by necessity deals with reality in a probabilistic fashion.

2.
Can you point me in the direction of the study that shows that 30k accredited scientists in the U.S. and 400k biologists don't believe in the theory of evolution? I honestly want to see where that information comes from. Sorry if I overestimated a bit, it was 98% of accredited scientists, not 99%. Here are the real numbers as of last year ----
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...10/darwin-day/

3.
You are absolutely correct! We don't deal with truth or falsehood due to how many people believe something, or based on the word of an authority. We deal with it in terms of what can be proven in reality. Which is why I asked you to provide me the evidence that shows that there is literally anything other than evolution and selection pressures that can be proven with evidence to be true. I also asked you to provide me what you believe to be insufficient in it's explanatory power, and ability to make demonstrable predictions. You did neither.
And in terms of the "evidence" presented, first, that is not evidence, that is an argument, and I have yet to see any sort of acceptance that those are valid arguments in even a slightly significant portion of the scientific community.
And trying to poke holes in the fossil record is basically laughed at by anyone that has seen all of the transitional forms that exist currently in museums. Not only that, but not having a complete picture of exactly what all of the mechanisms are or every single transitional form is not an argument against evolution. That's like saying gravity can't work or doesn't exist because we don't understand all of the underlying properties that give atoms their mass, or can't measure the exact amount of energy released at moment of the big bang. You're dealing in absolutes and it makes absolutely no sense.



By the way, I'm not attacking you personally, but armchair philosophy and armchair biology does not a scientific theory make.

Let me ask you one thing TwoSwords, what would convince you that evolution is true?

For me, you could convince me rather quickly that evolution is false, or needs serious revision by presenting evidence that proves that it is false. Like Bill Nye said in that debate he had a while back - Give me one piece of evidence that there is a fossil that is someplace it shouldn't be in the earth's crust and you will change the world.
hommecreux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2018, 04:33 AM   #42
TwoSwords
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 456
TwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging in
Default

Now, for the purpose of clarifying my points further, I'm going to respond to your points out of order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
By the way, I'm not attacking you personally, but armchair philosophy and armchair biology does not a scientific theory make.
I think your assumption here is that my knowledge of these topics arises purely from casual discussion (the working definition of "armchair anything,") however, I actually do very little discussing of anything outside of the internet. All of this information I'm giving you comes from works I've read on biology and philosophy, and podcasts released by various experts on the subject, both in my spare time, and as a researcher in the field of medicine.

If, however, you mean to say that any sort of philosophy or biology which is not being used to make a living is unreliable, that's a statement with huge ramifications, because that would mean that all education from books is worthless. I don't think you meant to claim that.

Lastly, on this point, I don't need to make a scientific theory, because my point was not that I have, or am advancing, any contrary scientific theories. My point was only that Neo-Darwinian Evolution has failed to provide sufficient evidence of its adequacy over the course of its run, despite numerous opportunities to do so. Since I'm merely questioning the evidence, the burden of proof is on evolutionists, though I don't like to resort to that sort of tactic. Quite frankly, whether natural selection is true or not makes no difference to me, and it wouldn't effect my beliefs or values one iota. Yet, I often get the impression that this is not true of many other people online, who refuse to look at the evidence against ND-evolution with an open mind (and like yourself, I'm not attacking you personally when I say this.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
Let me ask you one thing TwoSwords, what would convince you that evolution is true?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
If you don't accept that transitional forms exist, and scientists have done controlled experiments showing that speciation occurs
I'm 100% convinced that certain types of evolution are true. I'm convinced that microscopic life, like Malaria, can evolve to resist the effects of the drugs used against it. I'm 100% persuaded that life-forms descend with modifications, because I'm not identical to my father.

As for common ancestry, for that, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be true, but nor do I see any reason to think it is true, presently. If as little as 1% of available fossils were transitional forms, I would consider that sufficient evidence that common ancestry is the most rational thing to believe, though still not 100% proven.

However, for natural selection, there would need to be some evidence through testing; evidence that shows how a species can be made stronger through artificially pushing them to their limits. So far, the closest we've seen have been things like the peppered moth experiment, which were based on percentages, rather than one creature actually evolving into another. In order for man to have been produced by evolution, the rate of evolution would need to be much faster than is usually supposed; fast enough to be tested in this way.

As for evidence of speciation, it's still quite weak. There was some iguana evidence discovered at one point, but the iguanas were never studied sufficiently to prove anything. There was also an experiment done on fruit flies, but at best, that only led to the fruit flies preferring those who'd been in their own environments as mates, not to their inability to mate with others as a result of being a different species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
if you don't accept that the theory of evolution makes testable predictions that have evidence proving that the theory is correct
To claim that the success of some predictions (not all of them by any means) proves a theory accurate is no better than soothsaying. It's like cutting open a fish to prove what tomorrow's weather will be like, making your prediction from studying the fish bones, and because you happened to be right, claiming that fish predict the weather. Predictions of the future do not prove a theory true, and they especially don't prove it in the case of evolution, which, remember, is three theories, not just one, and even then, only seems to be right about twice a day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
And if you want to deal with things in terms of absolutes, then you are dealing in absurdities.
Not absurdities. Philosophy. In philosophy, it is absolutely true that we can know certain things. We know this through logic. If we couldn't know anything, we wouldn't be able to know that. But we can know that, so it follows that we can know certain things. It's logically impossible for truths to not equal themselves, or to be equal to falsehoods. Mathematical claims are essentially certain, and so are many other logical claims.

Now, in science, we don't use this standard, because science is about evidence and induction, but even in science, there are rules to follow, to determine whether a theory should be considered a fact. One of those rules is to not lie about what you're claiming, and another is to examine the balance of the available, relevant evidence, and compile it responsibly. Most popular-level defenders of "evolution" violate that first rule by using the word "evolution" as an umbrella term for multiple, separate theories with vastly different amounts of evidence to support them, so-as to sneak unsupported theories into the "fact" realm under the guise of respectable science, as I've said. It's equivocation; a philosophical trick to deceive, and is therefore not science.

They violate the second rule by focusing on isolated, experimental findings while hiding (or failing to take into account) the broader evidence of the fossil record, which I'll get to in a minute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
Humanity by necessity deals with reality in a probabilistic fashion.
These are not scientific claims; they're philosophical. This is what I mean whenever I tell people we have some of the worst scientists, because they've stopped doing science, and are making amateur assumptions about philosophy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
Can you point me in the direction of the study that shows that 30k accredited scientists in the U.S. and 400k biologists don't believe in the theory of evolution?
This is a strawman. I never said that. I said that they don't consider neo-darwinian evolution adequate, or they doubt it. However, this is not the same thing as "the theory of evolution," which, as I said, is an inaccurate and misleading umbrella term for confusing the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
Sorry if I overestimated a bit, it was 98% of accredited scientists, not 99%.
It's not even that. The article you cite says that these are specifically 98% of those affiliated with the AAAS, not accredited scientists in general. Furthermore, this poll makes no distinction between one kind of scientist and another kind (a large percentage of those in the AAAS are not biologists) while the numbers I presented were specifically from those working in the field of biology. If a physicist tells me ND-evolution is true, his opinion holds no more weight than my own, because he has no experience with ND-evolution, despite being an accredited scientist. Bill Nye, who you cite, is one of the most radical, fringe popularisers on the scene today. Almost no professional biologist agrees with Nye's views. People only believe him because he was on television, and wrote a book on a field of science that he himself had never worked in.

However, this poll doesn't even address common ancestry or ND-evolution. It only refers to the question "did humans evolve over time." That's a question isolated to the first type of evolution; descent with modifications, which everyone already believes. It's like they say; those who say they have no need for philosophy are the ones most likely to be deceived by it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
I have yet to see any sort of acceptance that those are valid arguments in even a slightly significant portion of the scientific community.
The "scientific community" is not the standard for determining the validity of an argument. That's the fallacy of appealing to authority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
And trying to poke holes in the fossil record is basically laughed at by anyone that has seen all of the transitional forms that exist currently in museums.
First off, laugh if you want to, but a laugh is not proof of anything. It just shows you don't have a good response to the objection.

On the topic of transitional fossils, I've actually studied the evidence for those, and frankly, most of them are seen as "early ancestors" to current animals (which could well be. Don't get me wrong,) but a "transition" implies more than just a few similarities, or a connection to one other organism. It implies a midway point between one distinct animal and another, and in this area, the fossil record has been virtually silent, providing no indication that we're not just assuming connections from minor similarities between distinct species.

Over the time since Darwin, archeologists have done their work diligently, uncovering over 100 billion fossils, over 100 million of which are now in museums, but of all of those, not one represented a clear transition between one type of creature and another. We have, instead, found many fully-formed species of even more distinct types, unrelated to those that came before and would come after, which also require transitional forms to explain their own existence. The fossil record has been nearly uniform in its reputiation of common ancestry. It's only sneaky philosophical assumptions and genetic mapping that have provided counter-evidence, and even then, not greater than what we have in the fossil record.

Charles Darwin recognized that there were large gaps in the fossil record, but the difference was that he could hide behind that, and say that when those gaps were filled in, it would support his theory. Now that we have been filling in those gaps, and found evidence against, rather than for, his theories, it seems perfectly reasonable to question the assumptions that historical science has made, which is now being done.

Furthermore, if you're going to laugh at the fossil record, I suggest you retract your challenge, where you said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
Give me one piece of evidence that there is a fossil that is someplace it shouldn't be in the earth's crust and you will change the world.
This challenge is disingenuous if you're not willing to look at the evidence of the fossil record against common ancestry.

As for changing the world, it's unlikely that anything said here will do that. People don't believe in ND-evolution because it's backed up by science. The belief system rests on faith and appeals to authority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hommecreux View Post
That's like saying gravity can't work or doesn't exist because we don't understand all of the underlying properties that give atoms their mass, or can't measure the exact amount of energy released at moment of the big bang. You're dealing in absolutes and it makes absolutely no sense.
Not at all. There's a big difference between the Big Bang Theory, which is well-supported, and ND-Evolution. To give an example, if the BBT is true, we should expect to see the universe expanding, motions of energy, indicating momentum, and a certain proportion of light elements in the universe, based on its initial conditions. Sure enough, as time has gone on, and science has advanced, we discovered the expansion rate of the universe, microwave background radiation in space, and the correct proportion of light elements to heavy (very recent information, this,) just as predicted by the standard Big Bang model. If, however, it had turned out that the microwave background radiation wasn't behaving as our model predicted, it would be rational to question it, which is why we should question ND-evolution.

Gravity is another good example, because there's so much evidence that it doesn't work the way we originally thought it did. When evidence was found that Newtonian models of gravity didn't work under certain circumstances, the theory was modified, and we should also be willing to modify our theories of evolution to deal with new evidence; not just try to cover up the evidence with uncomfortable laughter, dismissive behavior and logical tricks.

Now, it took a long time to write all of this out, and I'm going to be late for work, so I hope you'll respect the value of my time and consider some of it before reacting, please.

And if you're going to laugh (which is good for your health,) for pity's sake, try to laugh at something that's funny. I suggest the early Simpsons or the Addams Family.
TwoSwords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2018, 12:05 PM   #43
LarryTheNoodleGuy
 
LarryTheNoodleGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 222
LarryTheNoodleGuy knows EXACTLY what's going onLarryTheNoodleGuy knows EXACTLY what's going onLarryTheNoodleGuy knows EXACTLY what's going onLarryTheNoodleGuy knows EXACTLY what's going onLarryTheNoodleGuy knows EXACTLY what's going onLarryTheNoodleGuy knows EXACTLY what's going onLarryTheNoodleGuy knows EXACTLY what's going on
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by olly5764 View Post
Making the bold assumption here that we all agree in some way with Darwin's theory, we all know that certain traits will cause a species to die out or survive.
Now all of us are educated people and we all know that obesity can cause certain problems, heart failure, diabetes etc, however some people seem to suffer from these at 250 - 300 pounds whilst others seem free of them at 500 or more pounds.
My question is this, do you think with the world's bulging waist lines, weak hearts and other such issues will evolve out of the human race leaving us a stronger yet fatter species? Or Not?
Fascinating times.
LarryTheNoodleGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2018, 08:18 PM   #44
hommecreux
Attack of the twinkies.
 
hommecreux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Indiana
Posts: 64
hommecreux does more than just post hot picshommecreux does more than just post hot picshommecreux does more than just post hot pics
Default

Welp, I tried to reply, and when I went to post it the browser refreshed and let me know that I had been logged out. But hey, I tried!

At this point, I've got class in the morning and there isn't much new content worth addressing so I'll make this short and sweet.
You've not provided any evidence because you don't have any, nor do you have anything to support your claims, so yes it is armchair philosophy and biology. If the best that you can do is say that you have personal experience, and read books and listen to podcasts (and then didn't provide sources for those either, which makes it even more curious), I am not going to take someone who tells me their personal experiences should convince me seriously. I have big personal experiences to, sometimes they happen when I'm on the toilet. Does that prove you wrong? <---- laughing here

You didn't say anything new, and if you actually understood the logical fallacies that you are violating, you might have a chance at correcting your thoughts, and might even reign in that huge ego. Thinking that anything has to be absolute to be true is a red herring and does not apply to the real world. If you believe in absolutes, then how know you are sure about there being absolutes, and what make sure you sure about that, and that? Can you prove the logical absolutes are absolutely true? If so how do you know? The best that us humans can do to being absolutely sure about anything is believing that the pillars of logic are true, and that my senses are true to the best of my knowledge. I don't rely on them because they are absolute, nor do I put faith in them. I believe that they are true because in practice they have never failed me. It is out of necessity that I rely on logic and my senses because there is no other choice but to trust them. A person would have to be omnipotent to be absolutely sure about anything as best as I can tell... are you omnipotent? Or do you just think that you have been informed as such by someone you believe is? <--- laughing again
hommecreux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2018, 02:27 PM   #45
TwoSwords
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 456
TwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging in
Default

...And, like clockwork, we are back at terminal undercutting again.

Every time I discuss any topic of fact or reason with anyone online, then present evidence to support my conclusions, it always ends with the other person using terminal undercutting to sabotage their own position. Of course, this means the person has chosen not to be convinced, and is so determined to not be convinced by facts, that they are willing to attack the foundations of fact itself, in order to escape the inevitable conclusion. That's when I know that I've explained my point well.

Now, before I address any of your specific responses, I want to draw attention to the central problem with everything that you've said; it assumes logic is true, while also disregarding logic when it becomes inconvenient. For instance, you claim that every claim needs to be proven by some other claim and so on to infinity, when you say...

"If you believe in absolutes, then how know you are sure about there being absolutes, and what make sure you sure about that, and that?"

Well, what about that claim? Does that claim need to be proven by other claims, and so on to infinity? This is the problem with skepticism. Skeptics don't apply their skepticism to their own skeptical assumptions about philosophy; only to the views of others, which they want to avoid. Pyrrhonian Skepticism of this sort is self-refuting when applied to itself, and therefore cannot be true.

Furthermore, my belief in the reality of objective truth is a properly-basic belief, grounded in the simple fact that no contrary understanding is coherent. To claim that truth is nonexistent is to claim that truth is false, that (X) is equal to (not X.) Nothing could be less rational than that, and so, for that reason, I never, ever make the ridiculous mistake of questioning the reality of truth, as you have just done.

Furthermore, if truth were not real, there would be no point in arguing for evolution or anything else. No evidence that I brought forth would be worth anything, if the person I was talking to had a deep, inner feeling that I was wrong. Unless you can grade evidence in order of more-to-less valid, no piece of evidence should ever be treated preferentially, and the tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist is just as warranted in his beliefs on the basis of his feelings and suspicions, as the most experienced and decorated of biologists or physicists, who've studied and worked in their own field for years.

Indeed, if any of that were the case, your complaints about me not citing specific sources, or citing personal research (which you incorrectly refer to as "experiences,") would be wholly disingenuous, since no source I cite is any more valid than myself.

Now, I don't think any of that is true. I don't think you do either. Please, think twice before turning to Pyrrhonian Skepticism as an escape route. There is no escape that way; only chaos and voluntary ignorance.

Now, with that absurdity put to bed...

"If you understood the fallacies you are violating"

"Committing," you mean. Which fallacies am I committing, and why? If I am committing a fallacy, and you have the ability to tell me about it, by all means do so, and I'll listen.

"Thinking that anything has to be absolute to be true"

This is not at all what I said. Please re-read it.

"The best that us humans can do to being absolutely sure about anything is believing that the pillars of logic are true, and that my senses are true to the best of my knowledge."

Says who? See, this, again, is the problem with using "the best we can do" reasoning. Who is telling you that this is the best you can do, and what proof did they use to convince you of this? I have plenty of evidence that this is, in fact, a falsehood, and if "the best you can do" is not a full proof (as indeed seems to be implied here,) then it seems that people are well-justified in listening to people who can provide proofs of the things they say.

"It is out of necessity that I rely on logic and my senses because there is no other choice but to trust them."

There is most definitely another choice. I could do what my tinfoil-hat-wearing friend does, and believe every weird notion that comes into my head, and given how hopeless and lost the world is, I think that alternative is more attractive, quite frankly. Why shouldn't I imagine that every fat girl I meet is delighted and appreciative of her wonderful beauty? Unless someone can show that my imagination is "less real" than the information of logic and my senses are, there is no reason.

Now, look at all this nonsense we're going over. None of this has anything to do with evolution or even science. It's all first-year skeptical philosophy student rejection of reason and reality. I think, respectfully, that we should confine our discussion to the things that are realistic and rational.

P.S.: I always compose my replies in notepad, then paste them into the reply box and edit them there. That's how I do long replies.

P.P.S.: As to your complaints that I didn't provide evidence, that makes sense, since as I said in my last reply, I'm not the one advancing a proposition. Evolutionists are.
TwoSwords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2018, 04:27 AM   #46
Never2fat4me
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,703
Never2fat4me never has a post go unnoticedNever2fat4me never has a post go unnoticedNever2fat4me never has a post go unnoticedNever2fat4me never has a post go unnoticedNever2fat4me never has a post go unnoticedNever2fat4me never has a post go unnoticedNever2fat4me never has a post go unnoticed
Default

Here in FL, the discussion about evolution in HS biology is something your child can opt out of, so nothing really surprises me...

But I digress. Responding to OP, I wonder if obesity is not so much the future as the past. Up until about the past 75 years or so in the West (and this still is very much the case in a great part of the world), a lower metabolism and fat storage was a feature of survival. Who needs a fast metabolism if food is scarce? As food calories have become abundant, and food waste is a bigger issue in the U.S. than food scarcity, the need to pass along genes that fatten humans is less relevant. This will be a slow process - evolution takes thousands of years - but it seems more likely that we would evolve to be thinner than to adapt to being fatter. But as a species, I suppose it is a great problem to be had - possibly unique in history - to not be driven by the need for nutrition.

- Chris
__________________
If life gives you a lemon, make lemonade!
Never2fat4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If you need to replace your hard drive Jack Secret The Lounge 0 07-07-2012 12:01 PM
OkTrends: Fat People, Skinny People, and Sex Drive FatAndProud Main Dimensions Board 16 05-06-2012 06:11 PM
What the hell is it with these anti-Christian threads? KittyKitten Hyde Park (Archive Only) 165 07-09-2010 12:49 PM
are fat women who eat on public transport irresponsible? thinguyforbbw Main Dimensions Board 705 07-04-2010 04:36 PM
That vehicle you drive Fuzzy The Lounge 73 02-24-2006 12:10 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright Dimensions Magazine. All rights reserved worldwide.