Questions about evolution

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
NaddiaAoC	Questions about evolution		Lead	[-]
Witty&Wise Posts: 447 11/02/02 02:08:37 BookTalk Moderator	Tags : None I've started reading The Lucifer Principle and I have been enjoying the discussion on it so far. I think that I still lack understanding about some basic principles of evolution. So here are a couple questions I have. 1) Is evolution considered to be a theory, a fact, or both by the scientific community? 2) If evolution is considered to be a fact, what does that mean? How does a fact differ from a theory in the scientific method? Please don't direct me to the Talkorigins website. I've read it and I know how it defines it. But I've heard others disagree with it. I'm interested in views other than that. Cheryl
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
ZachSylvanus	Re: Questions about evolution	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 384 11/02/02 15:05:20 Amusingly Clever	Evolution is accepted as a correct method of describing the origins of the variability of life on Earth. Evolution by Natural Selection is still a theory, although one thats fairly well accepted. Fact, law, theory...its really all relative. The body of scientific knowledge is changing all the time. Newton's laws aren't really laws in the face of new advancements....such as gravity, for example. The distinguishing feature is mankind's arrogance over their models. As I was once told in Chemistry, regarding a model of the atom, "And as a model of the atom, it's probably wrong, like every other model we have. But it suffices, and for now that is good enough." Edit: This seems to be a good book on evolution so far. It's the textbook I'm using in my Evolution class currently, and its paperback, so its only about half the cost of a normal textbook.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Chris OConnor	Re: Questions about evolution	#2	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 9511 11/04/02 02:39:02 BookTalk Owner	We have many members who are well educated in the theory of evolution, or at least the process of the scientific method. I'm hoping to hear a few more responses to Cheryl's questions. Chris
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Johnny Neuron	Evolution: A fact and a theory	#3	[url]	[-]
Intern Posts: 64 11/04/02 16:19:36	HTML Comments are not allowed (damn)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	Re: Evolution: A fact and a theory	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 11/05/02 14:38:52	You may want to check out What Is Evolution? by Ernst Mayr. Mayr is sorta 'the' distinguished gentleman of evoulutionary science and his views are quite conservative, but that's probably a good thing if you're looking for basic information and ideas. It's out in trade paper now so shouldn't be overly expensive. For the length of the book (couple hundred pages), it is comprehensive - though Mayr will cover in a paragraph issues that others write whole books on (hehe... Gould's 'summary' of evolutionary theory is, what, 1500 pages?). One of the issues Mayr does spend a good deal of time on, however, is the fact vs. theory business with evolution. Mayr argues (and I heartily agree) that evolution as a phenomenon is a fact, while the various theories of evolution are more properly theories of the mechanisms that give rise to the phenomenon. For example, Lamark's acquired traits theory explained (badly) the fact of evolution, and Darwin's theory of natural selection explained (much better) the same fact; which is to say, the facts don't change, though our understanding of them does.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
NaddiaAoC	Re: Evolution: A fact and a theory	#5	[url]	[-]
Witty&Wise Posts: 447 11/05/02 17:22:48 BookTalk Moderator	Thank you for the replies. Ani said, Mayr argues (and I heartily agree) that evolution as a phenomenon is a fact, while the various theories of evolution are more properly theories of the mechanisms that give rise to the phenomenon. For example, Lamark's acquired traits theory explained (badly) the fact of evolution, and Darwin's theory of natural selection explained (much better) the same fact; which is to say, the facts don't change, though our understanding of them does. This has been my understanding as well. Am I correct in stating that a scientific fact is something that has been proven while a theory is still being tested or debated? When I say "proven" I understand that it's not with certainty. Even solid scientific facts could potentially be disproven. But it seems as if there is a much greater level of support for a fact than a theory. Do you agree? Cheryl
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
NaddiaAoC	Re: Evolution: A fact and a theory	#6	[url]	[-]
Witty&Wise Posts: 447 11/05/02 18:12:30 BookTalk Moderator	Here's another question. This is more of a personal nature. How does viewing our existence and our origins from an evolutionary or natural standpoint vs. that of a divine purpose affect the value you put on life? If we were a special creation by God our life has inherent value. If we simply evolved through the blind forces of natural selection our life has no inherent value. If God created us then our life has a purpose of greater significance and even if we die we will live on in one form or another. But if we evolved then our life has no cosmic importance. If I die tonight it really won't matter except to the few people in this world who care about me, but then they will be dead in a few decades and eventually I will be completely forgotten. So what was the point? Here is why I ask. I had a patient, a four month old baby, die this past weekend from severe trauma that she sustained in an accident. I found myself thinking, 'What does it really matter if she dies now or 80 years from now? Sure her family is greatly grieved by her death, but they will eventually die out and nobody will feel her loss.' In the big picture her life will have meant nothing, and it wouldn't have meant anymore after 80 years than it did after 4 months unless she happened to be one of the few people to do something so significant as to be remembered for many generations to come. But it seems to me that for most people their lives have no real purpose. Do you think that this lack of inherent meaning to our lives decreases the value that you put on life? I hope this doesn't sound insensitive. To me the life of a person, especially a child, is very precious. I felt a tremendous loss as I watched that beautiful little girl die and I cried with her parents as they let her go. It was very emotional. But when I start thinking about the whole picture, what was really lost? Cheryl
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Johnny Neuron	Re: Purpose and purposelessness	#7	[url]	[-]
Intern Posts: 64 11/05/02 18:31:27	Cheryl, Well, that's a very theoretical question. Ask anyone on the streets if they value life and if their life has a purpose and most likely the answer will be affirmative, albeit with varying convictions. Personally, I have found that most people have some sense of purpose to their lives and feel that we have inherent worth. Of course, the Bible God doesn't seem to put too much value in the inherent worth of his creation, but I know your thoughts on this. Here's something else about the matter, though: God (any god) didn't need to make us. Could we add anything to him that he would not alreadly inherently posses? No, not even if we were "perfect." So what worth is that really? And we were'nt so necessary for God to create us sooner than he did. I guess the idea of placing inherent worth upon a person strictly because of God actually opens more worm cans that we wouldn't think of. (That's not to say He doesn't exist) I think when people say they have inherent worth or purpose strictly because of God, they really are just saying that they want to be loved and recognized (in this sense, transcendently). But aren't we all not loved and recognized? (Well, you and I are still kind of working on this a bit, aren't we) So, I do not think that a deity is essential for purpose or intrinsic worth. We are the ones who bestow meaning into things. Somebody's got to do it, why not us? Bradley
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
NaddiaAoC	Re: Purpose and purposelessness	#8	[url]	[-]
Witty&Wise Posts: 447 11/05/02 19:26:44 BookTalk Moderator	Johnny, I understand that most people place value on human life, though not all do. I place a high value on it. But if we are the result of a blind evolutionary process then we have no intrinsic value. The only value our lives have is that which is placed on it by ourselves and others. And that's my question, does viewing our existence from an evolutionary standpoint decrease or increase your value of human life, or does it remain unaffected? God (any god) didn't need to make us. Could we add anything to him that he would not alreadly inherently posses? No, not even if we were "perfect." So what worth is that really? And we were'nt so necessary for God to create us sooner than he did. Well, it doesn't matter whether he needed to make us or not. All that matters is that he did make us. He loved us and valued us enough to create us. Then he loved us so much that he even sent Jesus to die for us (unless you believe the trinity and then he came to die for us himself). The whole idea behind Christianity is supposedly that God loves us and values us. He has a purpose and plan for us. If we live it's because he wills it, If we die it's because he has better things in mind for us. There's always some divine purpose. That gives human life inherent value and worth, as opposed to the animals who, while having some value are not divinely favored like humans. But aren't we all not loved and recognized? No. We're not all loved and recognized. Human life is aborted daily. It has no inherent value. Even many children are born into this world and abandoned or neglected by their families. Life only has value because we assign it value. So, I do not think that a deity is essential for purpose or intrinsic worth. I do. A deity is not essential for us to value our own lives and one another, but it is essential for us to have intrinsic worth. So my question is, how does this lack of intrinsic worth affect a person's value of human life? Cheryl
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
LanDroid	Re: Purpose and purposelessness	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 380 11/05/02 22:15:06 Amusingly Clever	It's difficult to see how we can value ourselves and others yet have zero intrinsic value, seem like they go hand in hand. You could turn it around and say that for many believers in God there is little intrinsic value in human life. If you believe correctly, life & death are irrelevant since you're going to the great reward. If you believe incorrectly, your life is absolutely worthless as Sagan documented in the practices of the inquisition and witch trials. Back to theory vs. fact, it's my understanding a scientific theory is much stronger than the "vernacular" use of that word. A scientific theory has a lot of data to back it up and it has predictive and explanatory accuracy. However to the general public a theory can be whatever a wacko dreams up such as a "conspiracy theory". So it is a misuse of the term to denigrate evolution as being "only a theory". (Sorry, probably preaching to the choir...)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
NaddiaAoC	Re: Purpose and purposelessness	#10	[url]	[-]
Witty&Wise Posts: 447 11/05/02 23:33:17 BookTalk Moderator	LanDroid, Alone in this world what value would you have? If there is no god to give purpose to your existence and there are no other humans to assign value to your life, of what value are you? You will compete for survival with other animals and you might very well die at the hands of another species, whether it's a lion who hunts you down for his next meal or a strain of bacteria that overpowers your immune system. Not a single being would mourn your death, except perhaps you, but only because you assign your own life value, not because of any inherent worth. We can assign our own lives value if we're mentally capable of doing so, but a severely mentally retarded person cannot do that and neither can a human embryo. And some, while capable of doing so, demonstrate that they do not value their own life by intentionally ending it. In a social context we assign one another value, or as you pointed out, we can devalue one another. But without a creator I don't see how it can be argued that humans have any intrinsic value. Alone in the universe nobody would ever care whether we live or die. And that's the situation as I see it. The lives of individuals, especially those with whom I'm close, are very precious to me. But in the big picture my life is meaningless and so is yours. The only large scale purpose we have is to reproduce and continue our genes. If a person never has a child then he will have left no lasting mark on the world whatsoever. And even if he does reproduce, who knows how long his line will continue or if humans will even be around a few thousand years from now. What was the point? Does any of this really matter? Cheryl
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
ZachSylvanus	Re: Purpose and purposelessness	#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 384 11/05/02 23:38:39 Amusingly Clever	To me, without a God, our value, while not intrinsic, is worth all the more, because it's what we assign to each other, not what some ephemeral being assigns to us.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MichaelangeloGlossolalia	Re: Purpose and purposelessness	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 85 11/06/02 05:57:42 Freshman	Does it really matter if you are remembered after you die? Why the need to be remembered? Once I'm dead, I'll have no reason to fear anything at all. As long as I'm alive, life has meaning, and I can value life without needing a deity looking after my shoulder. In fact, looking at a lot of the people who believe in God, their willingness to go to war, use the death penalty and so on makes them seem to value life less than I do. I don't know why that is. I just know that agnostics don't have holy wars. Michael
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
LanDroid	Re: Purpose and purposelessness	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 380 11/06/02 07:58:34 Amusingly Clever	You appear to define intrinsic worth as making a lasting mark on the world, a nearly impossible standard which perhaps only the Himalayan mountains meet. The existence of God does not increase the value of human life on Earth since this does not increase our impact on the future. Prozac? I don't agree with your definition - intrinsic worth is valued primarily while one is alive. Most have little long term impact, but there are exceptions. Trying to recite from memory: "Lives of great men all remind us we may make our lives sublime and leave behind us in departing footprints in the sands of time." - Whitman.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	Re: Evolution: A fact and a theory	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 11/06/02 15:40:05	*Quote:* Am I correct in stating that a scientific fact is something that has been proven while a theory is still being tested or debated? The way I see it, a fact is a confirmed observation; so it's not really a matter of proving it, but rather one of making sure it is accurate and free of subjectivity, etc. *Quote:* Back to theory vs. fact, it's my understanding a scientific theory is much stronger than the "vernacular" use of that word. Very true. Or perhaps not so much stronger, but rather it holds a much more specific meaning... though it is stronger in the sense that it is something that can be proved or falsified. It might also be worth noting that the vernacular use where theory=speculation seems to parallel the compromise that the church made with Galileo - the church says, "You can present your ideas, but only if you acknowledge them as nothing more than hypothetical musings;" and Galileo says, "grumble-grumble, I suppose the pretense is preferred to the alternative." In other words, the notion that a theory is the same as speculation is the 'white lie' that everyone turns a blind eye to so as to avoid folks getting killed. Given the situation at the time, that compromise was probably both generous and necessary on both sides (lots of people would no doubt have died, and it's not too far fetched to think forcing the issue could have contributed to a catastrophic turmoil in the society); but it leaves us with a difficult legacy.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	Re: Purpose and purposelessness	#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 11/06/02 15:52:42	*Quote:* A deity is not essential for us to value our own lives and one another, but it is essential for us to have intrinsic worth. I believe that is only true if you assume that intrinsic worth is slaved (and I use that word somewhat pointedly) to a predestined purpose, or at best to a purpose completely beyond us. Personally, I find that worse than a state of meaninglessness and feel that it devalues human life to a 'less than zero' condition, i.e. it seriously would not matter if I lived or died or never existed; all that would matter is that my living served the higher purpose, or equally, my dying served the higher purpose, or also equally, someone(anyone) served that purpose be it me or someone in my stead. In my mind, this may reflect a functional value of a human being, but not an intrinsic value of the specific individual. Without going into my personal philosophy, what I'd say in terms of intrinsic worth, is that we have the inherent ability to create (this is not unique to being human, we're just aware of that basic process). The question I find inescapable is: What can be of greater worth than that? In terms of purpose, that becomes: Our purpose in life is to claim our birthright. Or more generally, intrinsic worth is measured in the coin of possibility... which sorta makes evolution the proverbial money tree that makes me (and life in general) embarrassingly rich, while divine purpose renders me a pauper with only the one penny to offer. PS: Cheryl, please don't take those remarks as an assault on you or your beliefs so much as just trying to answer your questions with a peek through my own eyes (I understand different assumptions = different perspectives and conclusions).
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MichaelangeloGlossolalia	Intrinsic value means what?	#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 85 11/25/02 15:53:30 Freshman	I'm not sure how to visualize "intrinsic value". I understand value in relationship...my life has a certain value in the eyes of my family and friends, but perhaps much less value to someone in another part of the world (and vice versa). We routinely place a higher value on the lives of people close to us than on members of foreign groups (the more foreign, the less value, apparently). Biblically, our only value is as playthings or love-objects of a deity. What image do people have in mind when they use the phrase "intrinsic value"? Is it one of those phrases with ambiguous or abstract imagery attached, or is it something specific? Michael
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	Re: Intrinsic value means what?	#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 11/27/02 20:49:52	Intrinsic value is the worth of a thing in and of itself, i.e. by virtue of its existence independent of its relationships with other things. Often it implies a thing's value not tied to its particular identity as well, such as 'each and every human life has some intrinsic value irregardless of who they are or what their actions are.' That basic worth in the case of humans is typically associated with the meaning or purpose of life. I don't find it a terribly useful or appealing notion... first because it implies (or demands) that the thing's importance, etc., is based on its utility (e.g. as a servant of god, or whatever); and second, because I don't see how you can define a thing except by its relational qualities. For me, that means intrinsic value becomes potential of a thing.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 12/12/02 01:48:47	the theory of evolution is a "theory" for one reason: it has never been proven experimentally. If something can be proven experimentally then it could be considered an objective fact, but that is not the case with evolution. However, in western society it has become a matter of public and official opinion of educational institutions that evolution is a fact. The funny thing is that even the theory of evolution is not well understood. For example, how did aquatic animals, who were well adapted to the water and doing well, suddenly get the crazy idea of sprouting legs and breathing air? This is a basic part of evolutionary theory that we are supposed to accept without question and it has never been explained to me in a believable fashion. It amounts to an alternative religion because it requires leaps of faith.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Chris OConnor	Re: theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#19	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 9511 12/12/02 03:29:49 BookTalk Owner	Solomonmagi While I am no authority on evolution I'll see if I can form some semblance of an intelligent response to your post. And I would love to see you register and get involved here at BookTalk. Just visit the JOIN page for simple directions. *Quote:* ...how did aquatic animals, who were well adapted to the water and doing well, suddenly get the crazy idea of sprouting legs and breathing air? My understanding is that there is now new evidence to support the idea that tetrapods first developed their limbs while still living in aquatic environments. The limbs evolved for the purpose of locomotion through swampy environments, wetlands, or weed-choked shallow waters. Once out of the water the limbs proved to be of survival advantage, which supports the notion that evolution produces adaptations that can become useful in the future for a completely different purposes. These early tetrapods would live almost entirely in the water, but over the course of time, some would venture further from the water and for longer durations. Perhaps this migration was due to intense competition for resources, or perhaps from a decrease in natural aquatic haibitat. Either way, some left the water more and more frequently. Those that left the water who had the ability to survive outside of the water would have a higher probability of survival, and thus opportunity to pass along their genetic code. *Quote:* This is a basic part of evolutionary theory that we are supposed to accept without question and it has never been explained to me in a believable fashion. Who ever tried to get you to accept any aspect of science without question? Are you sure you interpreted them correctly? Science is a process which includes exposing your ideas to scrutiny, so I'm confused about where you heard you shouldn't challenge current evolutionary theory. There is a Nobel Prize awaiting you if you happen to know something the rest of the scientific community doesn't. And all scientists are aware of this carrot too. So what would be the incentive to dogmatically adhere to unsupported flimsy theories and models? *Quote:* ...and it has never been explained to me in a believable fashion Are you sure? Science is a funny thing Solomonmagi. You really have to seek science out. It doesn't come to you. Understanding science takes time, energy and a real committment to learn. BookTalk was developed as a tool or means to this end. Together, as a cyber-family, we can take the never-ending journey of personal enlightenment. I hope you decide to join us permanently as we all have much to learn. I'll be the first to admit I'm a babbling idiot when it comes to most of science. But damn it turns me on. So it has never been explained to you in a believable fashion? Who have you talked to? Who has done the explaining? What were their credentials? When they failed to make sense did you go elsewhere? Did you have an open mind when you were listening to the message? Most of us commit numerous logical fallacies throughout our lives, and one of which is the confirmatiom bias. Are you comfortable in that you really and truly were receptive to the message? Or were you defensive and already a believer in an opposing idea? Do you spend your time and energy reading science books? Or are you more focused on alternative theories like creationism or intelligent design? As I said, Science is a funny thing. There isn't a whole lot intuitive about how the natural world works. You have to consciously seek answers and always keep your mind open. Perhaps I went to far in my response here. This is your first post and I don't know anything about you or your background. I sure hope to hear more from you on this thread and elsewhere in the BookTalk community. Chris
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Kenny Meek	theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 82 12/12/02 09:05:49 Sophomore	Solomonmagi asks- "The funny thing is that even the theory of evolution is not well understood. For example, how did aquatic animals, who were well adapted to the water and doing well, suddenly get the crazy idea of sprouting legs and breathing air? " It seems to me that a study of Tadpole/Frog behavior, biology, and adaptation might lead to some good clues regarding this question. This is a direction of inquiry I've been meaning to pursue for a little while now but haven't gotten there. Frogs are evolution in action, and their macro-physical makeup when dissected has a remarkably human resemblance. I suspect that frogs and ourselvelves share some ancestry a little closer than we do with other reptilians, and the fact that we can actually watch them evolve from fish to land dwellers in a matter of a few months is well,....like a scholastic "gift from God " or something?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

About BookTalk.org

BookTalk.org NEWS

Questions about evolution

Questions about evolution

Quick Reply