Breast and Clitoris

[Calrid]

@turtle

@Calrid

@turtle

When you are talking about evolution why are you referring to the bible? That is old stuff. Let’s talk about the randomness of molecular variation.

because IDiots are, although they dress it up vaguely differently.

Essentially if we can’t explain something, then God or The Bible can by way of an intelligent designer is the answer after all if we found a coke can inside a dinosaurs gut, that would prove evolution wrong. Smart designer given he was blind and directionless and life seems to have no purpose or goal beyond just living.

Why can’t we just ignore that stuff. It doesn’t make sense. It will fade away with time.

Sadly we have to police the IDiots or they will infest our schools.

[rasava]

@Humpty

it might even be inaccurate to discuss evolution in terms of benefits as well, in that case. one thing we all must realize is that there does not exist a language on earth that was made for discussing objectively accurate processes/things/etc. language is used by people for people, so when using it, we may sometimes be led to anthropomorphizing things. so, even though someone’s conception of something may be fundamentally correct, when they discuss that idea, the human bias in language can sometimes be a barrier to accurate communication.

Well, I do think there is correct language to discuss evolution properly, and in the process of discovering it we gain better insight into what it is saying. I am not a hardcore Analysis kind of guy, but I do tend to go into the Analytic toolbox for discussions on evolution because the language misuse seems most acute. The goal is not to echo the despair you express above, but rather to discuss evolution in the context of where it belongs - in the area of mutations or traits that persist in the species such that the mutation or trait improves the survivability of the species as a whole.

In the exercise, we realize how “teleological” we really do think. Science strives to be the “view from nowhere”, completely free of individual human perspective. It can approach that ideal but never reach it, however, since it is humans themselves who conduct the science. There are perfectly plausible scientific theories that fall in and out of favor as a function of culture to some degree. We try to avoid that but it happens. One can then ask themselves to what extent is individual human perspective a necessary component of science and if so, what does that mean about the Scientific Method as an epistemological foundation? Or you can say that human perspective is just a pollution to the purity of science that must always be expunged wherever possible.

Anyway, back to evolution - Once you get to an acceptable language, you then can analyze the real power - and the limits - of current evolutionary thinking as a whole. Evolution as it stands today is the BEST theory we have now for the changes in species. But it is not perfect or complete. Anyone who believes otherwise is really making a bold statement, as scientific thought is as much a subject of “evolution” as the biosphere. I am more suspicious, for example, of its application to abiogenesis. It is the best theory that can be extrapolated to abiogenesis I suppose, but there are more gaps left unanswered. In particularized applications, evolutionary theory seems to have a “fallacy” (too strong a word perhaps) in logic that “anything can happen the way we want it to if there are millions of years in which it can be allowed to happen”. Does that mean I want abandon evolutionary applications to abiogenesis? No. We can try to answer those questions in an evolutionary context of course.

I am not a Creationist or a believer in Intelligent Design or any of the other alternatives. However, I don’t feel as personally offended by any of them as some on this thread seem to be. I listen, I refute, I move on. The rest is a waste of time and would be more of a function of my own psychology. Like Einstein, I am suspicious of atheists who are hostile to theists as if they are harboring some personal anger for some reason due to their own individual experience. Similarly I am suspicious of those who exhibit emotional hostility toward opponents of evolution - which is particularly strange because evolution has so much going for it. They are free to believe what they want, and I am open to any insights they might actually provide - but that takes listening first and not insults. I believe it takes all kinds to provide potential insight even if those kinds are fundamentally incorrect.