Hmmm… it sounds to me like you’re deviating from Darwinian Fundamentalism. Brace yourself! MartianMan will be calling you a creationist any minute now! Seriously, though, how do you think these theories will change the theory of vertical evolution? Could bacteria or parasites be our intelligent designers, perhaps?
Don't be a dick. You know I'm going to read the thread so talking about me and others in third person is an obvious attempt to insult me while staying within the boundary of Clutchfan rules. Half your posts are position-less. You keep saying ID is a valid scientific inquiry and that evolution has problems. And then you stop. Everyone asks you how ID is valid and you just dance around the problem. Prove ID? Pretty easy to do, right Grizzled? According to you anyways. Keep dancing. Keep dancing.
Grizzled, I might spill some themes over from the last debate we had on this matter.... These discoveries are in it's mere infancy, but the medical/pharma implications to them could be astronomical. The theory of vertical evolution won't be knocked down for a good time. Most entry level courses on bio are still preaching the gene to be the most significant end all, mainly because there's a vacuum on replacing it's understanding and importance with this "missing link". Besides, vertical evolution (Macroevolution) is the extrapolation of microevolution, which has been verified repeatedly over time. Acedemics will continue to teach its possibility because it's an elegant primer towards understanding deeper intricacies, though it's flaws are revealed below due to intense specialization. To answer your question, the most dramatic changes in Macroevolution will come from the new tools that we use to discover them - I'll believe it when I see it. We'd need another Einstein or elegant experiments like Michelson's light measurement or Watson and Crick's insight on X-ray imaging to get these answers instantly. Otherwise, like everything else, we'll just have to wait for the answer through technological advances. I'm implying that there's a dual relationship that's forcing current species to appear the way they are now. In your hypothetical, we would be the intelligent designers of bacteria and parasites as well. This is much like a city designer's plans and the actual function of the city 20 years later. A fallout shelter could become a nightclub...a school into a prison. While Evolutionists would claim their theory fits in that principle, not many cell biologists would make such a broad distinction in their research. An ecologist recognizes that there's a complex web of organisms involved in a fully functional niche. Whereas a biologist or a businessman would take a zoo-like approach towards tinkering by only studying the main target and learning how to sustain/kill it (give the single animal climate, food, and approximate habitat...and then observe/assume). Up until now, scientists' response to microbiology/Macroevolution hasn't been as thorough as say Macroevolution through studying animal interactions (which also isn't as complete as many believe)...mostly because our knowledge of the cell world is very limited to what eventually happens to the body on the outside. Most of the "good bacteria" has largely gone ignored because of the improbable task of categorizing them. Much like finding terrorists among a certain ethnicity, human pathogens are a very small percentage of the total number of foreign organisms living in the body. Even categorizing harmful bacteria isn't even a fully developed field. Only lately has there been growing acceptance in probiotics that espouses the benefits of using helpful bacteria (such as found in yogurts) to reduce the number of harmful bacteria without taking medication, much like using ladybugs for a crop instead of chemical pesticides. It was largely this unconscious assumption, that only harmful interactions from pathogens play a role in evolution (malaria & sickle cell), that made the evolutionary microbiological field narrow minded and soley focused on genetic evidence, such as destroying or weakening AIDS (vacination) or improving T-cell resistance (medication). You could call that "normal science", though I see Kuhn's thoughts as a case on evolution working in social science. It doesn't mean the current theories are more right (as humans are perfect) than previous theories (dinosaurs), but that they are more articulated and accepted in the current (social) climate at hand. This is why Kuhn's theories were an anathema to idealogical scientists because truth had supposedly been revealed as arbitrary and contemporary. Yet look at Kuhn's example in Newtonian physics vs. general relativity. The underlying evidence would claim that both would work on earth or at low speeds. A Newtonian could launch a rocket into space with few hitches (as NASA technicians use more of the former than latter). What does this say about ID? Well as you alluded, what you quoted from me could be in favor of either side. Should ID be taught in schools, the underlying facts would be largely consistent with what is being taught right now (public school systems aren't geared towards free thinking) with the main difference being that there is an overt acknowlegement of a higher entity. What if it's purely neither or both? Scientists recently isolated 2 genes that are key to brain growth and development. As an aside, the infant monkey's brain is more developed than an infant baby's... The surprising aspect of this discovery is that those genes emerged ten or hundreds of thousands of years ago, fairly recent by geological standards. What if humans evolved intelligence from recent genetic tampering? What if it's God's/higher entity's design all along and the timer to those two genes just went off at the right time? What if it was a favorable mutation that helped lift Homo Sapiens above neanderthals? What if it was the result of a catyclism that resulted in genetic drift? Depending on your bias, you can answer all questions with ID, some with commonly accepted Evolution, and all with both. The underlying facts are all consistent. Despite the claims from slippery slopers, the methodology will be as well. It's the climate that allows which theory to be the fittest.
Great post Invisible Fan! I really enjoyed that. Very interesting stuff. The political climate around this issue is extremely frustrating these days and I find this kind of post very refreshing and informative. Thanks again!
No problem, Grizzled. Many macroevolution proponents don't believe it to be the end all but rather it's the current theory with the best fit. 10-20 years from now, it could be shelved for another theory. The cynical reality is that neither side genuinely expresses the underlying issue of our steadily underperforming school population despite increased government funding. Both are intently focused on the cultural implications. Honestly speaking, I think the implications of this issue is whether to add "plus God/higher being?" to existing ideas. Everything else is the status quo (since ME never truly denies the existence of a God or being with powers of a Deity). Of course, if humans were ever to observe God on an empirical basis, we'd first study all it does, then either put God in a lamp or force It to lay Golden Eggs.
I beg to differ. One's faith is part of that person. He certainly didn't do anything to you to deserve disrespected. You might have different views than his, but really, do you realize that you have faith too? Evolution theory is your faith, so to speak, because it's never fully proven to any one. Or better to say, NO ID is your faith. You chose to believe it with all your strength, that is FAITH. Besides, you can always have faith in love, in dignity, to every piece of beautiful things in this world. Why you don't respect faith? I don't get it
Grizzled; I agree with Deckard that passion and faith should be respected and I've tried my best to be respectful of your position. I know you've taken offense to my use of the terms "Magical Thinking" and "Intellectual Laziness", I won't apologize for using those terms but those were in no way directed at you personally but describey my own opinion regarding the danger of reaching for non-materialistic (metaphysical) answers to materialistic problems. If you feel that these have been personal slights upon you personally I apologize and again I have nothing against you personally but I will debate hard and present my case forcefully. What I will try to avoid is going into the kind of "Owned brah!" type juvenile comments that are too prevalent on this forum and have appreciated that you have done the same. That said I believe you are an intelligent and thougtful person but for whatever reason there is a total disconnect between us regarding this issue. It may very well be that I'm not explaining it adequately to you or that I may not be fully understanding your POV. What I am feeling is that you feel that your position is the persucuted position and are taking an extremely contrarian view. I see this in that your arguments are primarily based upon the political nature of science rather than a discussion of evidence. In previous threads I've asked you to show proof of why ID should be acceptable and have often demurred because there are many ID theories. That's true but if you believe ID is correct thenyou must feel that at least one theory must have a high degree of validity for you to support it. Yet rather than further elaboration you've come back to arguing that the scientific establishment and non-science Evolution proponents like myself are close minded and biased. Those are political arguments and not evidentiary arguments regarding the validity of ID. Further you've made arguments that are predicated on my accepting your point of view already, such as, I've said that agree there are some problems with the theory and gaps in the evidence but I've never said that there is no solid empiracal evidence. In previous threads I've painstakingly gone through why I believe Evolution is the most likely theory and the evidentiary reasons why. Further you state How have I moved the goal post at all? If you read through any of these ID / Evolution threads I've been consistent regarding what I believe science is. When have I changed the definitions at all? I've always said that for something to be considered scientific it needs to be considered rational, quantifiable, empiracal and systemized. As far as things being disproven no offense but I think you're moving into the realm of the "OWNED BRAH!" type posters where you argument of disproven is based upon your own reasoning. I've never said that ID was disproven and have repeatedly stated my willingness to accept it provided it is subjet and proven according to the scientific method. In regard to changing the goalposts why would you accuse me of that when you bring this up: I answered your question regarding archeology and how while archeology is a science it is limited in regard to what its looking at. Yet you're moving the argument into a discussion on all social sciences? For the record I believe social sciences are sciences but again the issues they look at are limited in regard to a narrow field and are still subject to being rational, quantifiable, empiracal and systemitized. Under that I don't believe that Freudian psychoanalysis is science because its not quantifiable or systemitized. Skinner behavioral research is science because it relies upon experimentation and empiracal observation of behavior in a systemitzed manner. Anyway this is a moot point because the issues in psychology and sociology deal with different issues than biology or chemistry or physics and principles of one field don't necessarily translate to another. For instance you wouldn't apply the psychological principle of defensible space to an analysis of stresses in a steel column. Finally since you mentioned it my definition of science is very non-traditional. The Webster's dictionary defines it as: Science - 1. Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc..2. A branch of knowledge, esp. one that systematizes facts, principles and methods. 3. Skill or technique. The only way that my definition of science differs from that is that I add empiracal but I think that could be read into "facts".
I've read some of Aquinas' work a while back and I think might have read some of that piece. I agree that science does reach a limit to explanations of the Universe and have repeatedly said that rationality is not the end all. That said we're talking about an issue that is primarily materialistic, as opposed to metaphysical or spiritual, the problem I see is that too many ID Proponents are too quick to make it a spiritual issue by mistaking the morphological transition from one species to another to a spiritual argument that somehow that debase us spiritually. I don't see why that has any bearing. If we are descended from slime molds I don't see how that is relavent to us as spiritual beings.
I wouldn't disagree with this and would if the empiracal evidence for ID or some other theory than Evolution presents itself and is tested via the scientific method I would accept it. This is close to my view. Whether "God" exists or not I don't think is really central to Evolution. Intellectually myself and many Evolution proponents can fully accept that God exists and even planned out the Universe. Evolution just seems to be the way that he/she/it went about it. Darwin felt that way. Twhy77 had a great piece in another thread regarding the issue of randomness. From our perspective things seem to occur randomly but from a God's eye view perhaps it is all planned and every action has already been pre-ordained. The problem with claiming this in a scientific way though as you noted is that we would need to prove God empiracally. That is inherently problematic.
I’m not that familiar with the debate down there so I'm not following all your God references, but my understanding is that some of the ID people leading the fight in the schools are “fundamentalist creationist” groups, I’ll call them, who may not be any more principled or any less deceitful or manipulative than the Darwinian Fundamentalists we see in this thread. You do understand that my position on this is not a creationist one, right? There are certainly people here trying to pigeonhole me and misrepresent what I’m saying so I hope you haven’t been misled. My concern here is that free thinking and good science be allowed. I shudder to think that people like some of the Darwinian Fundamentalists in this thread could be teaching young children in school to march lockstep with their own narrow beliefs, indoctrinating them to be partisans in their political war. If people are allowed to think freely and are encouraged to seek truth, not conformity, from both the scientific and spiritual perspective, then I believe they will get closer to it and often find it. I believe, as Kuhn did, that overall science is moving forward, but it’s not the smooth steady process that many believe it to be. It staggers sideways quite a ways, and falls back sometimes, but in the long run the facts that point the way forward mount and political corruptions, like Darwinian Fundamentalism, come to be exposed, and science picks itself up and takes another step forward. There were also a couple of points I missed making to your first post that I’ll add here. I use the term vertical evolution instead of macroevolution simply because by some definitions large scale horizontal evolution is called macroevolution. I want to be clear in differentiating between simple genetic drift, a well established phenomenon, and the kind of mutation that would lead to more complex, higher level organisms. I believe most evolutionary scientist agree now that these must be caused by very different processes, otherwise we wouldn’t have distinct species. We would have a continuum of life forms at many different stages of evolution, and we’d have a fossil record that shows that as well.
I can definatively say that this is not the case. At least a significant minority of geneticists still believe that the mechanisms are the same and the determining factor is environmental pressure. I believe that one of the greatest problems for anybody examining evolution is wrapping your mind around the obscene time scales involved. It's difficult for me to pin down eactly which parts of science your objections extend to, Grizzled, but the common wisdom has the first Archaean fosils occuring 3.5 billion years ago, and the conversion of the atmosphere from a reducing methane/ammonia atmosphere to the modern oxidizing one about 2.5 billion years ago. How trivial effects play out in normal timespans is nonintuitive when you scale to that sort of span. I would be interested to hear exactly where you delineate your differences with "commonly accepted science".
He did. In my first post, I was talking about faith in general not about him. But after his childish response in which he insults me indirectly (you don't have the balls to insult me to my face? how cowardly can you get?), I definitely don't respect him at all. I know a person exactly like him and, you can't win. Back to the topic of faith, however. Faith is such a general term. I don't see how you can respect someone just because the have a strong faith. How about the faith Hitler had that his race is superior? How about the faith that spurred manifest destiny and resulted in genocide? How about the faith that promoted slavery, the inquisition, and the crusades? How about the faith that allowed prop 2 to pass? I don't understand how you can say that you respect FAITH by itself. FAITH by itself is neither good nor bad, so how can you respect it?
MM, if you insist on bringing Hitler's faith as an element of the discussion, (which I freely admit to being late getting into, and have yet to read the entire thread) as well as the other connotations you apply to faith, then you toss aside the kind of faith that has great meaning to millions upon millions of people, of all religions, that isn't at all like you describe. What you describe as faith are the extremes. You need to open your mind to the fact that the majority of "people of faith," are not extreme in their beliefs. Their beliefs just differ from those of an agnostic, like myself, and whatever you believe in. Don't you think that by doing that, you are just as guilty of the kind of close mindedness that you obviously despise? I respect those who have faith in something beyond themselves as long as they are open minded enough to respect my lack of it. By it's very definition, for me, as an agnostic... one who chooses not to believe due to lack of proof, to ridicule those who do believe would be the height of hypocrisy. When you discuss faith with those of Max's or Grizzled's ilk, you aren't having a discussion with close minded, far-right, bigoted religious fundamentalists. Quite the opposite. I find them refreshing. Free your mind. Keep D&D Civil.
Evolution is very flexible. When Darwin wrote his observations, Mendal (gene inheritance) wrote his a few years away, but neither corresponded their findings to each other. It took the work of Ernst Mayr and other NeoDarwinists to form the current Modern Synthesis. (a Wiki function for all these catchwords would be nice right now...). I didn't mean to imply the findings would totally trash ME (in title/definition) entirely, rather it'd be a totally different being as we know it. Shortly before Darwin, Lamackian Evolution was popularized as the new concept behind inheritence. This is where a blacksmith who used his arms more would automatically have children with strong(er) arms, or Michael Jordan's kid making sick(er) dunks like his old man. Though it was wrong, it was the most earliest resemblence of a theory on Evolution. So you can call this proposed change Evolution's punctuated equilibrium... I wouldn't spend effort in my responses if I were. As a personal observation about this and the other thread, I see your responses going from moderate to extreme possibly from being outnumbered in voices. Creating a term like Darwin Fundamentalists only serves to entrench both sides even further. My God references are synonymous to the supernatural powers held in historic accounts over the world. In this realm of debate, my definition would be a race, being, or entity that can destroy/make planets or genetically create life from scratch (not the GM variety but rather a progression like steel->gears->robot). They would be considered Gods one thousand years ago, and most people would consider them Gods now. It doesn't mean there isn't a larger God encompassing all of us. No disrespect intended. Down here it is all politics. Remove all scientists, and this debate will still rage on. Good minded liberals will push Progressive science. Fair hearted conservatives will push for enforcing morality and tradition. The education system is all politics. Every interest group has their grubby hands on lesson plans. Huckleberry Finn is banned for racist language despite it being an anti-racist book. Historical accounts are Bowlderized to produce a more patriotic image. "Controversial text books" are boycotted, and specialized books are demanded. It's all about funding and academic scores. Free thinking is not a premium. The abstract relationship of science between money, power, and knowledge is a battle most students won't understand. No matter which side wins, the way it's taught now is boring. The interest groups who are fighting that symbolic battle "for the sake of this country's future" might think they understand it, but like a good business, good science won't be held down for long. It might not be from our public school system, it could be from the private sector or the military. If other countries surpass us in production/advances, long overdue reform is always an option. I think this will correct itself because Americans are too proud and greedy to let some foreigner think they can do something (worth doing) better than us. The hottest major 5 years ago was IT. Now it's accounting... So if I get you correct, you have no problem with an insects changing into a similar looking yet categorically different species (can't inter-breed), but you don't put much credibility in the possible relationship between reptiles and birds or monkeys and man? Fair enough. In science, believing requires some method of seeing or a damn good framework. Like Otto, I also disagree that most evolutionary scientists believe that. Fossil records are hard to find, especially when the Earth compacted most of it up for us to burn. A major misconception in archaelogy is that the earth is one giant landfill or some icecore to drill in. With plate techtonics, the floating crust is constantly moving. You have erosion and decomposers weathering down anything of value on the surface. Fossils are very rare. It would be analogous to standing by a street lamp and taking one step for every 10,000 years from where you want to see. Sure, there's millions of lamps, but there's billions making use of that lamp (for parts, light, shade, shelter) and you'd have to know where to look for each specific lamp. You also have to assume that all the lamps work when you want to find it. Because of that difficulty in piecing a definite image, archaelogists are allowed huge amounts of creative freedom. It makes technical evolutionary scientists look down upon that field (bones they can believe, but the newer theories are just stories) and some evolutionists don't even take a much signifcance in their recent findings. It might be looked upon as a weakness, but it's a testement to the depth and breadth of the current Evolutionary theory that it doesn't have to rely soley upon fossil theory. And for politics, each side will use anything to enhance their point. It's elitist and rather disingenuous to people outside the field.... My idea about the missing link? If we're talking about the current gradual reductionist form of evolution (your commonly accepted Evolution?), we would be the missing link. In 100-50k years we evolved a stomach to digest more vegetables, lactose tolerance to ingest milk beyond infancy, larger brain, and less hair. That's a dramatic leap for people who claim evolution happens millions and billions of years. But if we only realize that among our own species now, what about other animals that perform unnatural acts of nature such as switching sex, making embryos without a fertilization from its partner or forming a permanent symbiotic relationship with another species? No matter the distance, not enough people are looking at those lamps...not enough scientists or cost/benefit... So what about "vertical Macroevolution", or what one half would call punctuated equilibrium? So, we're evolving now and we're the missing link, and this big jump is supposed to come out of nowhere. I love analogies, so think of the game Jenga. It's a tower of staggered bricks where each person pulls out a brick, changes turns until one makes the tower falls (vodka shot optional). That is supposed punctuated equilibrium on the genetic level (what about the influence of foreign objects stated before? not enough current information). The gene is very good at copying itself, but it isn't 100% accurate. Nature has allowed the screwups as long as they aren't detrimental to current conditions. (the number of undetected viruses could probably take several decades to categorize). People assume that evolution and adaptations have to be positives for the being to pass its genes. It can be either positive or neutral (6 fingers). Much like working in the government, if you **** up and nothing happens, you keep your job for today, but if that **** up saves Uncle Sam money 10 years from now, take credit fast and wait for that promotion. Well if you happened to evolve a larger brain, it would suck for you if it occurred during the Jurassic Era. You would've been eaten by a pea-brained dinosaur. Given our shortened lifespans, the current theory of punctuated equillibrium can't be directly observed or predicted. If it's true, it doesn't have to take a large change or a huge amount of time. We're 99% genetically similar to chimps, yet the leap to human primates supposedly occured 2-4 million years ago. There's a lot open to interpretation, so each side isn't as definite as it seems. The Bush/Not-Bush era hasn't been great for moderates. It should be that debate on this matter would increase the public's focus on science. Yet it's done the opposite, and science is still presented as esoteric and boring.
I think you're being somewhat unfair to Grizzled and other people of faith. I agree that blind faith can lead people to some dangerous places. From what I've seen of Grizzled on this forum I don't think its right to make those kind of comparisons regarding Grizzled's faith to the likes of Hitler or the Crusades. As you're aware of I have some pretty strong disagreements with Grizzled regarding this subject and won't shy away from forcefully debating with him over it. Other than that though I probably agree with him more often than not, and you probably do too. This is a heated subject but I think using this as a springboard to attack people of faith isn't fair. As we've seen posters like Rhester and Svpernaut have come out and admitted they are biased by their faith in regard to this issue but I don't think that would drive them into becoming like Hitler.
Am I typing words that I'm not seeing? When I'm talking about faith, I'm NOT talking about Grizzled's faith or even religious faith. I'm just talking about the word "faith". Extremely strange that people keep thinking that I am talking about Grizzled or Christians when I never mention them... I have read many of Grizzled's post and some of it, I probably agree with. He has logic though he twists it for his own purposes. On a side note, it is interesting he claims people are trying to box him in while he boxes me in as a Darwin Fundamentalist and claims I called him a creationist even though I can't find the post in this thread in which I did. You see what you want to see, I guess.
Well both sides are making it personal and entrenching themselves further. Reading these topics, everyone seems to agree to certain points in the first 5 pages and then it devolves towards trench warfare and chemical weapons shortly after. Faith comes in all forms. Whether it's your friends, family, or TMac coming back stronger than ever....
You weren't talking about them directly but you drawing what I would consider an unapt comparison. He's called me the same many times. I don't take it personally.
