Question From "Traditional man and country"

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question to Anonymouse - From "Traditional man and country"

That's another point to be made against this "environment determines all" conundrum.

Take the topic race: It is asserted that Africa's warm and humid environment made black people look the way they do, and that Europe's cold north supposedly made white people look the way they do, yet this doesn't answer why the same cold north made Asians look the way they do. It's all a bunch of guesswork by a bunch of self-styled 'experts' and self-important pseudo-intellectuals who like to believe they have all the answers to everything. However, whether we are dealing with religion or science, we must always be careful not to succumb to any ideology which claims to have answers to everything. That is how deception occurs.

Thought Africans migrated from Egypt.......

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question to Anonymouse - From "Traditional man and country"

so Mormonism is the one true religion? (Can't prove it false, and it isn't denied by millions)

You're referring to an organized structure of society governed by laws. Most of America, much like many western countries were built on the foundation of Judeo-Christian laws. So technically, you will be taxed and punished for not living a certain way of life. Having babies out of wed lock and divorces are rather expensive. Perhaps this is why the entire western world is in decline? Just a thought.

And fyi, things that are well evidenced, like gravity, in science are still considered a theory.

That's because unlike numbers on paper, the real world isn't perfect.

Also kan, just looking at evolution in actual human, (post ancestors), we see plenty of evidence for it. Asides in differences skin pigmentation, and skeletal structures, you see Europeans evolving a tolerance to latcose due to herding cattle for centuries and including cow milk in their diets. In Africa, where countless people have been exposed to malaria for centuries, many africans now have a higher amount of genes for malaria resistance, (in short, if you took ten africans, 10 asians, and 10 europeans, all who have never been exposed to malaria and exposed them, the africans would have the best chance at fighting/avoiding the disease)

What if you took 10 african americans?

of course through cultural exchanges these beneficial genes will spread throughout the species instead of staying localized and dividing us further

Cultural exchanges of diseases have also been know to wipe out entire populations of people.

[VartanK]

Re: Question to Anonymouse - From "Traditional man and country"

According to Karl Popper in order to be classified as a valid scientific theory all theories must be falsifiable.

Popper's idea is based on the equivalence between NOT(All(statement)) and Some(NOT(Statement)), a technique used by philosophers, scientists and other thinkers for thousands of years. Popper was an epistemologist and his goal was to find ways to understand and classify knowledge, and there exist many other methodologies to classify knowledge. Is falsifiability a useful concept? Yes, that's why it has been used before and after Popper.

By the way, falsifiability is for experimental sciences, not all scientific theories as you seem to think. Axiomatic knowledge is not falsifiable, but has value. For instance, the basis of his concept i.e. NOT(All(statement)) = Some(NOT(Statement)) is a mathematical truth and can only be validated with axioms.

Is evolution somehow beyond this point and thus cannot be falsified?

I think that you're seeing in the concept of evolution more than there is, something religious. Evolution simply says that the laws of entropy are such that living organisms may change, and the laws of probability are such that the environment will benefit to some i.e. the "fittest will survive". I will invite you to contemplate molecular binding or how different organisms "recognize" each other, how protein is synthesized, and DNA replication. That illustrates and summarizes evolution and the "fittest survives".

Let's not confuse the simple principles of Biology with evolutionism that uses the concept of evolution to explain the history of mankind and our planet. It's irrelevant what were the actual phases of mankind's evolution and whether all living creatures have the same ancestor or 32784 different ones, that's "poetry" as Popper and other epitemologists would have said.
Can there be other theories or set of concepts that can describe life? Of course, but Molecular Biology is the best for now, even if it can be labeled as reductionist by some epistemologists.
Do you know a better one?

Your position all points to this immutable status which evolution has reached that it is immune from criticism and those that do are somehow ignorant because they have not taken a course in molecular biology at their community college.

That is drama. Popper and some epistemologists would have called it poetry. Of course, they did not mean what people call poetry and they did not mean to flatter.

You seem to be suggesting that evolution is beyond that and cannot be falsified. Thus, according to you, evolution is pseudoscience.

When did I say that evolution is beyond whatever?

First, your statement should be that unless the principles of molecular biology are totally wrong, then evolution...(not than).

Thanks! That destroys my entire argument, doesn't it?

Second, what is this reference to "tell us why"? Who is "us"? The "scientific community" that pats each other on the back? All those on the forum who agree with you? Do you feel safer in numbers and in the psychological association with others who believe as you do? This is a fallacy ad populum. If most people believe in Y then therefore it must be true.

What difference does it make what "us" means? It's a figure of speech. If you have a better model, then present it otherwise, there's no need for drama.

Third, there is a burden of proof issue. It's placed entirely on the wrong side by proponents of this theory as if the proponents have proven this beyond a reasonable doubt. Those who question it cannot discredit evolution because they cannot prove a negative. In other words, detractors of the said theory cannot prove that "it did not happen." This presumes many things for which even the scientific community has not been in agreement at one time or another, and the theory itself has changed over time. For example, that all depends on what we mean by "evolution" for what is considered "evolution"? The definition itself has changed and there are a lot of loaded assumptions and issues with semantics.

For example, it used to be believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process. However, because there was a lack of intermediate forms and there was a problem with finding these, then there came punctuated equilibrium which altered the meaning on its head and suddenly changes were not gradual and slow over time, but sudden and drastic. The definitions have been altered to hold fast to an immutable theory when the evidence would not fit the previous definition. In other words, the theory itself is more a product of a philosophy of naturalism rather than anything remotely related to scientific deduction.

Again you're confusing the concept of evolution, and it's usage to explain the history of mankind. Again, if you have a better model then please share it with us. The history of science and knowledge in general is a succession of different theories and the fittest survives.

Another example is within species variation. People like to point to fruit flies or moths or other things and say, "Well, there you have it! Evolution!" This is where the lines become murky and semantics plays a huge role in terms of what is considered valid evidence and proper theory. If all the evidence that exists are within the realm of what are better and more properly referred to as "adaptations" or what is better termed as "microevolution" and on a small scale, then no one can deny any of this. These are things we observe. Things which are observable, testable, and repeatable are proper under the scientific method. That is the way it goes, I cannot change it. But to make a leap of faith, and to go from this and assert that there are more dynamic changes that simple and primitive organisms somehow evolved, morphed and changed into more complex species - well, that is a level of Disney I cannot believe if I am using the only tool at my disposal, which is the scientific method. To hold otherwise would only affirm that evolution is a like-class of faith and has a very strong belief component embedded.

As I've said before, you're seeing in those concepts more than there is. You can't blame the concepts if you are misinterpreting them.

Evolution (in the way you define it) as a theory has "unreproducible" characteristics, and a process that has never been observed. Science is about what is observable, and testable in the natural world. If it cannot be observed, falsified and tested, it is pseudoscience.

We all know that science is about the observable. It's not because you see something almost religious in the concepts of evolution and "the fittest survive" than it's pseudoscience. Please look inside you before blaming others.

[VartanK]

Re: Question to Anonymouse - From "Traditional man and country"

So what is the theory of evolution that is used today which accounts for the limitations of this "environment" role in leading the dynamic of evolution? Can someone define it for me because the Darwinian model is definitely not the one we're working with anymore in science, it has no predictive power to back Darwin's naturalist orientation.

When you fully understand molecular binding or how different organisms "recognize" each other, how protein is synthesized, and DNA replication, then you'll get a good idea of evolution and the "fittest survives".

Those concepts are well defined, have an empirical meaning, happen trillions of times each microsecond and are observed by thousands of biologists.

That's another point to be made against this "environment determines all" conundrum.

Take the topic race: It is asserted that Africa's warm and humid environment made black people look the way they do, and that Europe's cold north supposedly made white people look the way they do, yet this doesn't answer why the same cold north made Asians look the way they do. It's all a bunch of guesswork by a bunch of self-styled 'experts' and self-important pseudo-intellectuals who like to believe they have all the answers to everything. However, whether we are dealing with religion or science, we must always be careful not to succumb to any ideology which claims to have answers to everything. That is how deception occurs.

Your understanding is caricatural. Too much drama.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question to Anonymouse - From "Traditional man and country"

When you fully understand molecular binding or how different organisms "recognize" each other, how protein is synthesized, and DNA replication, then you'll get a good idea of evolution and the "fittest survives".

Those concepts are well defined, have an empirical meaning, happen trillions of times each microsecond and are observed by thousands of biologists.

Your understanding is caricatural. Too much drama.

I say we beat him up and take his lunch money...... that's how survival of the fittest works in the real world.

[VartanK]

Re: Question to Anonymouse - From "Traditional man and country"

but Molecular Biology is the best for now, even if it can be labeled as reductionist by some epistemologists.

If you are going to quote portions of my statements, at least address the relevant quotes portions of the arguments I raised.

I don't know what you;re trying to say? Are you trying to say that I have quoted you or did not?

To make the conversation more focused, let me challenge you and ask you what makes Molecular Biology reductionist? I hope that there will be more than "poetry" in your reply and will be based on well defined, well understood concepts and processes of Chemistry and Biology.

Notice how it states "is the best for now." Embedded and implied in this is the notion that there is a level of uncertainty and doubt about this concept.

Is that a revelation? That is true of every theory and concept unless it is deducted from axioms, and axioms cannot be validated. This debate occurred more than a century ago, is there a need to revisit it?

Aside from your continued confusion of "than" and "then," and your continued reliance on the fallacy ad populum, this is the only statement of relevance in your long diatribe...I have not confused anything about evolution, I have merely suggested it is conjecture (which it is) and your statement above validates this. You insinuate that I am confused but this is merely a red herring on your part because there is nothing else you can state that will make this any more of an indisputable fact. It's not like you can walk into a lab or court room with a wheelbarrow of evidence and state "Here it is, the definitive proof on our evolution and it is indisputable." There are very few things on this planet that constitute absolute knowledge. This isn't one of them, no matter how many times you appeal to your sense of wanting to believe, like Agent Mulder.

I don't see anything relevant to evolution, just more drama.


By the way, I have another question regarding something else you've said in the thread "Traditional man and country" but I'll ask it later.

[jgk3]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

this really isn't going to get anywhere...

[VartanK]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

this really isn't going to get anywhere...

You're right and that is sad. I don't understand why there is so much drama. Evolution is a concept of Biology, why all this mysticism?

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

It's not getting anywhere because it's pointless. Evolution is just as much a myth as any other. And let's not forget that Hitler believed in social Darwinism.

[VartanK]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

It's not getting anywhere because it's pointless. Evolution is just as much a myth as any other. And let's not forget that Hitler believed in social Darwinism.

Why is it so hard for you to distinguish the biological concept from it's usage to explain the history of mankind? Molecular binding, protein synthesis, DNA replication etc happen many trillion of times every microsecond and that is not a myth. Using those concepts to provide a possible explanation of the mankind will necessary have something "religious".