Question From "Traditional man and country"

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

Mouse isn't arguing that there's no evolution, he's arguing that evolution cannot be used (alone) to prove a theory about man having non-human biological origins.

The problem is, you can't use just biology to explain life since life is also composed of chemistry(water and elements) and energy(electricity). Soon as you mention these other factors, all of a sudden evolutionists claim that life doesn't have to be that way and other forms of life are possible.

[jgk3]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

I wonder if Siggie will grace us with a response.

[VartanK]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

Mouse isn't arguing that there's no evolution, he's arguing that evolution cannot be used (alone) to prove a theory about man having non-human biological origins.

First of all, one can't prove something like that, one can only prove Mathematical statements that are based on axioms.
Second of all, if that is his position, then he has no clue what he's talking about. If one understands and admits the simple concepts/processes of molecular binding, protein synthesis and DNA replication, then one will easily understand how men (or a given species) can/may evolve from other species.
Let's not forget that classifying living organisms in terms of species is just a taxonomy invented by men and there's no absolute truth in it.

I think jgk3 summed up my position rather succinctly.

Yes, he succinctly described a position that makes no sense.

However, I still don't expect either of you to comprehend what your rigid minds will not allow you to.

Instead of continuing to falsely accuse, why don't you tell us what is so rigid in finding acceptable the currently accepted explanation of molecular binding, protein synthesis and DNA replication, specially when I've added:
"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"
Why are you so dishonest?

I will leave you two with an interesting quote from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, but which will be useless akin to water poured on desert sands:

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."

This is off-topic because my scope was limited to the basics of Molecular Biology. It seems that you stubbornly believe in what you imagine to be true, no matter how many times you're proven wrong.

[jgk3]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

First of all, one can't prove something like that, one can only prove Mathematical statements that are based on axioms.
Second of all, if that is his position, then he has no clue what he's talking about. If one understands and admits the simple concepts/processes of molecular binding, protein synthesis and DNA replication, then one will easily understand how men (or a given species) can evolve from other species.
Let's not forget that classifying living organism in terms of species is just a taxonomy invented by men and there's no absolute truth in it.

When and where does this taxonomic classification of "human" end? Can you refer us to some paleontological/anthropological findings of fossils that are intermediaries between humans and non-humans?

Basically, you have your theory of evolution, but you're leaving out the important role that this fossil hunting plays in trying to provide actual credibility, using chronologically deducible, physically observable facts about human biological origins.

This is why theory of evolution alone, DNA replication, protein synthesis, molecular binding, etc.... is not perceived as enough, not only by us, but by the world at large. People like fossils to tell the tale, and that's why paleontologists, anthropologists have been so obsessed about them, trying to recreate the line of our descent with them. I think the real issue arises from whether people actually think this line of research is credible or not for explaining our origins. In modern times, the standard is that we do agree with the general findings. The thing is, the instrument we are using to reach these conclusions gets its appeal for providing a nicely taxonomically defined line of progression between us and earlier hominids, and perhaps pre-hominid ancestors. This biology stuff that you studied is complimentary to this approach because it provides a scientific explanation for how this progression may have occurred, but by no means does it suggest that this progression occurred to begin with (whereas fossils do).

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

When and where does this taxonomic classification of "human" end? Can you refer us to some paleontological/anthropological findings of fossils that are intermediaries between humans and non-humans?

The claim is that the change is so infinitely small that it has to occur over millions and millions of years so the intermediaries are non existent.

[VartanK]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

When and where does this taxonomic classification of "human" end? Can you refer us to some paleontological/anthropological findings of fossils that are intermediaries between humans and non-humans?

Just like biological entities, conceptual entities evolve. I'll expand on this in your thread about "Traditional man and country"
What is an end? What is a beginning? Those are philosophical/religious matters that I did not mean to discuss.

Basically, you have your theory of evolution, but you're leaving out the important role that this fossil hunting plays in trying to provide actual credibility, using chronologically deducible, physically observable facts about human biological origins.

This is why theory of evolution alone, DNA replication, protein synthesis, molecular binding, etc.... is not perceived as enough, not only by us, but by the world at large. People like fossils to tell the tale, and that's why paleontologists, anthropologists have been so obsessed about them, trying to recreate the line of our descent with them. I think the real issue arises from whether people actually think this line of research is credible or not for explaining our origins. In modern times, the standard is that we do agree with the general findings. The thing is, the instrument we are using to reach these conclusions gets its appeal for providing a nicely taxonomically defined line of progression between us and earlier hominids, and perhaps pre-hominid ancestors. This biology stuff that you studied is complimentary to this approach because it provides a scientific explanation for how this progression may have occurred, but by no means does it suggest that this progression occurred to begin with (whereas fossils do).

I started this thread to state that:
"Unless you show that the principles of Molecular Biology are totally wrong than there will be evolution as long as there is life. "

Fossil hunting and the rest is done in order to come up with a plausible explanation of the history of mankind. I have already expressed my views on evolutionism and the usage of evolution of living organisms to explain the history of mankind.

[Haykakan]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

The deductions made from fossils are based on the biological and evolutionary theories we apply today. These theories do get a big boost from fossil records because fossil records support them. It can be said that these theories were devised partly because of fossil studies so in that respect the fossil records and evolution theory are interdependent. The fossils already discovered tell us a great deal about us and our evolutionary past. We know that there were different species of humanoids living at the same time and while fossil records will never be complete it is amazing how much information they have already given us. Imagine how hard it would be to find pieces of bones burried millions of years ago in different places on earth in many pieces and to identify them properly. These diffuculties are the reasons why no fossil record can be complete from begining to end. The fossil records already in existence give us a very good picture of the past and clearly support evolution theory including human evolution.

[jgk3]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

nicely summarized haykakan.

[VartanK]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

The fact that you are so easily perturbed that people disagree with evolution highlights the discomfort and rigidity of your intellectual capacity. You keep citing to DNA replication, molecular binding, photo synthesis as if you have some holy grail. I have already stated that we are talking YZ vs. X. You keep hammering X to prove XYZ, when I have maintained that concluding XYZ when the premises of YZ are shaky and conjecture at best mean that the conclusion of XYZ takes a faith based leap. Clearly then, there does not seem to be any arguments against that sort of flawless and self-consistent logic. X is your assertion of molecular binding, protein synthesis and DNA replication. Nothing there indicates, demonstrates, conclusively verifies or establishes that we somehow morphed and mutated over time from simple organisms into complex ones.

The quote is not off-topic because it was posted in relation to the intellectual rigidity and discomfort exhibited by you at the thought of dissent.

I have repeatedly said that I'm not discussing the evolution of mankind that you keep confusing with the concept of evolution in Biology, and I have never said or suggested that the concepts of evolution in Biology "indicates, demonstrates, conclusively verifies or establishes that we somehow morphed and mutated over time from simple organisms into complex ones"
Nobody is perturbed, but you're becoming boring. You're really a master of distortions and emotional rhetoric. I don't know why you keep doing it because it's not working for you.
I don't know if you're a thick headed, dishonest or simply too embarrassed to admit your ignorance on the subject. To use humor, I'll say that I understand why you don't believe in evolution because even your repetitive and boring drama does not seem evolve.

Correlation is not causation. The fact that there are similarities in no way indicates anything. It's a leap of faith and defies logic to make an unsubstantiated assertion that because of X that somehow we can conclusively establish XYZ.

Your ignorance of science, logic and methodology is so obvious that it makes your statement a bit laughable. Honestly, what do you know about correlation and causation? You've read an epistemology book that mentions Popper, correlation, causation and some other concepts, is that it?
With all due respect, you sound like a charlatan to a specialist. Now I understand why you continued to avoid suggesting an alternative model to the concept of evolution. Now I see why you have avoided to explain why you think that Molecular Biology may be considered as reductionist by epistemologists. Because you have absolutely no clue.

[Yeznik]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

It seems that Anonymouse is speaking about macro-evolution and that VartanK is speaking about micro-evolution.