Questions about evolution

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
ZachSylvanus	Re: theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#21	[url]	[-]
Posts: 384 12/12/02 20:09:11 Amusingly Clever	Sprouting legs is easy, since it's just a bunch of successive mutations on the Hox genes for the limbs. Flippers to drag out of the water, slowly morphing to something a little better suited to both water AND land locomotion. Now picture you're an aquatic animal, with a slow metabolism. You're a predator. The warmer you are, the better you can prey on other animals. So you drag yourself out of the water a bit, gills still working at the shore, and warm up a tad more than your neighbours. You're able to be a better predator, and are more likely to survive to propagate your genes. As time passes, more mutations lead to a better ability to get out of the water onto the land to bask. The Hox genes shift to make you a quadruped, and you can swim and maneouver on land--you're an amphibian. I know that's highly simplified, but it's a good example.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Jeremy1952	Re: theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#22	[url]	[-]
Posts: 907 12/13/02 13:40:12 Enlightened One	In General: Evolution is a fact. Not every detail has been worked out. The fact that every detail has not been worked out says nothing about one of the most thoroughly tested and examined theories in all of science. In Specific: There is new evidence that legs evolved long before the move to land. Animals have been discovered who were fully aquatic, and used legs to move about on the bottom of shallow coves. Of course we can't be certain about specific historical events, but our current best guess is that animals walking around underwater found themselves in water TOO shallow; those variants that could use their legs to get to another pool were the ones who survived events that trapped their cohorts.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	Re: theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#23	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 12/13/02 21:32:34	Returning to the subject of Cheryl's question: 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? ... 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? This could easily be considered one of the defining question of philosophy. So great is its history that Socrates himself contemplated and defended such issue against the sophists. There has been much effort to disarm the implications of your question by undermining the religious point of view. Some have said that the existence of a God does not render life more valuable, others state that life becomes even less valuable. I know you and I share similar backgrounds and similar approaches to life and I suspect that you find these answers to be as equally shallow as I find them. This is not a question that you can win by default. Eliminating the opposition leaves us right where we started, doesn't it? Babies still die. People still starve. Couples fall in love, other's grow to despise one another. Life goes on and there's not a damn thing anyone can do to change the inevitability of our finitude. In the grand scheme of things what difference does it make if we die as the victim of infanticide or live the life of Socrates? You said that a diety imparts some intrinsic worth to our lives, but I ask you, what is the inherent worth of God, in the grand scheme of things? What difference does it make if God himself exists or not? His being has no more inherent worth than that of our own. What right have we to derive value from an entity who according to our own premise is valueless. Cheryl, this is a path which you should not travel unless you are fully prepared to face the consequences of your inquiry. Even the great Socrates chose to die before embracing the proposition you are about to hear. The Sophists said that all things are but conventions. There is no objective truth. Meaning and value cannot exist beyond the framework of man's mind. You are indeed worthless Cheryl, as is your child, as am I, as is every member of this community, and every person and everything that has drawn breath on our pale blue dot in the grand scheme of things. Why? There is no grand scheme; there is no objective reality; there is no point of reference from the human perspective to drape ultimate value upon. "I see all this potential, and I see it squandered. Goddamnit, an entire generation of pumping gas, waiting tables, slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We are the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no great war, no Great Depression. Our great war is a spiritual war. Our Great Depression...is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars, but we won't...And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very...very...pissed off." ... "You are not your job. You are not how much money you have in the bank. You are not the car you drive. You are not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world." ... Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? Listen to me. You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. It's not the worst thing that can happen to you. We don't need him. Fuck damnation, man. Fuck redemption. We are God's unwanted children, SO BE IT! First you have to give up. First, you have to know, not fear, that someday, you're gonna die. It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything." ... "I found freedom. Losing all hope was freedom." Cheryl, once we understand that there is no real meaning to life, only then can we truly appreciate the value confered upon each other through explicit relationships and implicit social conventions. What is more precious than that which can be so easily lost? I would love to end here, but the matter of "ought" cannot be neglected. If life is inherently meaningless, as I have implied, then what right have we to condemn those who regard life accordingly? I have argued that enlightened self-interest demands that we sanction those who take life, but I am no longer so certain that this is a sufficient model. I must concede that I have always felt the subconcious pangs of doubt lurking in my mind although I did not recognize them then as such. My reading of Bloom's The Lucifer Principle has more than ever forced me to acknowledge that socially atomistic theories, like self-interest, can never fully describe human nature and therefore can never provide the basis on how humans ought to live. I think Rousseau, a French contract-theorist, provides an essential clue in that he believes man's only true virtue, in the state of nature, is pity. Mankind is thus inherently social, and I think Bloom would affirm this notion. 'No man is an island' becomes annexed to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' as the golden rule. We ought to value and preserve life because each of us is a member of a larger organism. No single cell, by itself, determines the course and fate of the body, nor does it ultimately matter if one cell lives or dies, but the course and fate of the organism is dependent upon the unity and cohesion of it's constituent cells. I hope that I have respectfully and sufficiently addressed your question, Cheryl. I hope that I have not provided you any answers, but only a point to ask more questions. I appreciate your determination to pursue questions of ultimate concern and to reject the easy answers that appeal so powerfully to our human concete. If I have ever been insightful, it is only because of people like you.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Chris OConnor	Re: theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#24	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 9511 12/14/02 09:59:42 BookTalk Owner	Tim That has to be one of the most impressive posts I have seen in a very long time. I'm seriously proud to have someone like yourself a part of the BookTalk community. *Quote:* You said that a deity imparts some intrinsic worth to our lives, but I ask you, what is the inherent worth of God, in the grand scheme of things? What is the inherent worth of God? What a phenomenal question! People just assume that a creator sits at the pinnacle of worth and value, but why should this be so? Perhaps because the deity says this is the way it is supposed to be. He demands our respect, admiration and worship. He demands it! "Believe and worship...or I'll cast you into a lake of fire for all eternity." *Quote:* Cheryl, this is a path which you should not travel unless you are fully prepared to face the consequences of your inquiry. This gave me chills. Probably because I traversed this path a long long time ago. What strength it takes to ask such blunt questions, knowing fully well the answers might be extremely painful to digest. *Quote:* There is no objective truth. I would probably word this differently, but when push comes to shove, you and I probably agree on the underlying meaning. I do believe there is an objective reality, and rational man must strive to bring his subjective interpretation of this reality as close as possible to the objective. One can never be 100% positive that their understanding of reality, and objective reality, are one and the same. But science and reason have proven themselves repeatedly to be the best known tool for bridging this gap. The key word here is "truth." By "truth" I doubt you are referring to "reality," but are more or less referring to values and worth. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Chris Half of my post mysteriously vanished after I clicked the post button! Just pretend the above response is much longer and more thorough please. Thanks.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	Re: theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#25	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 12/14/02 12:37:36	Chris Thanks for pointing that out. I did indeed mean that there is no objective moral reality. I can see how that could be misleading.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Kenny Meek	Re: theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#26	[url]	[-]
Posts: 82 12/14/02 14:23:50 Sophomore	TimmmaaHH!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	Theory vs. Fact vs. Opinion vs. Truth	#27	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 12/14/02 16:49:56	*Quote:* I did indeed mean that there is no objective moral reality. I don't think this necessarilly follows from the things you've said. Or, if it is true, that means you lose any basis for judging what someone ought to do and you're again left with the unsatisfying business of self-interest and in a position of undecidability imposed by relativism. I'm not suggesting that there is any sort of externally imposed Good (i.e. god) - and I'm not sure I see how serving the larger organism is any different than serving god (in fact, I think it's precisely that close similarity - the serving a higher purpose - which can make the superorganism notion so appealing). I am suggesting, though, that in order for there to be a meaningful morality there needs must be an objective principle by which acts are judged, i.e. we must define Good and make sure it is in all cases in accord with reality. For me, that principle resides in the celebration of the individual if you will, rather than subordinating that individual to a larger whole... I like to say "everything is local" and that would include morality. It is not found in the existence or purpose of something 'larger than ourselves' (which is rendered meaningless as, in my reading, you point out with your questioning of god's worth and denial of a grand scheme). Rather, Good is found moment to moment in our state of being; or more accurately perhaps, Good emerges discretely from interelational states. *Quote:* Meaning and value cannot exist beyond the framework of man's mind. I would disagree. Things exist in relation to one another whether or not they are conscious. That relation is meaning. A. Greimas worked this out into a formal system of semantics by which you can define anything by its state of relation to its associated (i.e. semantically adjacent) concepts. The basic form looks like this: The really nifty thing about that, I think, is that meaning is formed in terms of intensions (sic) and is idependent of arbitrary symbols and, esp., is free of any particular manifestation of that meaning: truth beyond fact, i.e. the meaning would be true in all possible worlds - and that gives you objective meaning that is also internally generated.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Jeremy1952	Re: theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#28	[url]	[-]
Posts: 907 12/15/02 00:25:31 Enlightened One	*Quote:* the theory of evolution is a "theory" for one reason flat wrong. Building theories is what science does. We especially like the true ones *Quote:* it has never been proven experimentally flat wrong. Reference: Jonathan Weiner, The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time *Quote:* The funny thing is that even the theory of evolution is not well understood. flat wrong.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	Re: theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#29	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 12/18/02 21:38:12	Ani: I agree with you when you say that things exist in relation to one another, and that relation is meaning. However, I'm not sure I follow your logic when you conclude that meaning in this sense is synonymous with meaning in the moral sense. Can moral values exist in relation to other moral values independent of consciousness and can they be universally objective for that matter? I guess I just don't see how the descriptive relationships between moral concepts can tell us anything about what is good anymore than black is not white can. Your comments on meaning in terms of intention lead me to believe that I have misunderstood your argument. Certainly you cannot be saying that intention can exist as a meaningful objective moral standard? - Tim
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	Re: theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#30	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 12/19/02 14:04:43	hmmm... meaning is not really the same thing as a definition like you'd find in a dictionary (which can only be true for this particular world), which is why I use the term intension (not to be confused with intention). I like to think of it as the meaning created by the "tension" in the relational state. More formally, an intension is the "sense" (or more formally still, the function) which maps the referents (i.e. instantiations) in a particular world. In our world, for example, the term water refers to H20, while in, say, an anti-matter world it might refer to a molecule made up of different anti-elements peculiar to that world, yet still have the same sense, would still be "water" in that it would be in the same relation to its world as H20 is in ours. *Quote:* Can moral values exist in relation to other moral values independent of consciousness and can they be universally objective for that matter? I believe they can, though I think you need to be very, very careful in how it's understood. Or, if I can restate what you've said... moral values and/or concepts are a product of consciousness; but I feel we can get at more fundamental level (which is why I used the term Good instead of moral) - so it's not the relation between different moral values that is an issue, but rather it is the relational state which generates the potential for moral action. If we have a meaning for the term Good which is true in all possible worlds (universally true in the deepest sense), then we have a moral imperative from which the values can be derived, a principle of Good relation upon which moral action is based. The Good relation part is what is independent of consciousness, though it only gains moral weight with awareness of it.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	Re: theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#31	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 12/19/02 15:08:38	Thank you for the clarification. You have satisfactorily answered my objections, and I have no choice but to agree with you as long as the premise that a meaning for Good can be discovered which is true in all possible worlds. However, I am still unclear on how this is possible. My previous post is based upon the assumption that this is not. Could you flesh out the details of this a bit more for me?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	Re: theory vs. fact vs. opinion	#32	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 12/20/02 13:15:32	Yipes! I wish I could do that easilly or succinctly, or that I had it all worked out and formalized I think, however, that the first thing is to establish what the fundamental state(s) of relation is... which I think would roughly correspond to the relation of contrariness (i.e. inversely complimentary or reciprocally active opposition) in the semantic rectangle. You also need to determine what the two fundamental qualitative properties of all things are that would correspond to the two terms in the relation, which in turn yields the ways in which things can interact... that generates movement if you will in the relation. All of that, of course, in the a context stripped of specific referents - meaning the pattern and nothing but the pattern Good would then be the particular pattern of relation/movement which corresponds to the the primary intension of the term. Personally, I believe that it is the state of relation/action that brings a thing into being - in short, the creation/emergence of something new. This is Good, and I call it Harmony (defined as the imperative for being). In a sense, this renders change Good, but only a specific type of change - maybe likening it to a 'phase transition' is a good analogy.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	Objective Morality	#33	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 12/23/02 17:03:49	Wow, sounds more complex than felific calculus (not literally). I am interested, but I feel I don't have much to go on. You cannot expect me to agree with a system that as such is so ambiguous and incomprehensible. Would it be possible for you to provide as thorough an explaination as you are able, or perhap support your position with references? I am having a great amount of difficulty understanding the connection between the fundamental state(s) of relation and your idea of good. I am also unclear about how my idea of morality can be reconciled with your idea of good and to what degree. - Tim
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MichaelangeloGlossolalia	Objective morals	#34	[url]	[-]
Posts: 85 12/25/02 00:29:04 Freshman	The obvious thing about morals is that you will rarely find an instance of a moral code that says "the extinction of humanity would be a good thing". Nor will any popular moral code undermine one's genetic neighbors, one's family or national group, one's peer group, or the links that one needs to survive. Even difficult moral choices are viewed in terms of what boundaries will be preserved or altered, i.e. whose interests are being protected. It follows that there is an "objective" moral code, that of the stability of boundaries and the establishment of rules for altering boundaries without too much unintended feedback and mishaps. If there is any truly "objective" moral system it is the one programmed into us for our survival. At some point (now might be an example) the survival of the species may be threatened by the group bonding and scapegoating programs that kept our ancestors afloat. In such a case it would be necessary to make the transition from a family/friendship/peer group moral code to one more in balance with the survival needs of the species. In other words, "You must hate your mother and father, pick up your cross and follow me". Pick up the cross between the interests of your genes and the interest of the gene pool as a whole, loosen familial attachments when they become a hindrance to growth, and seek a unity with others on a level more conducive to species survival. That would be one way to view the rise of Christianity, and I believe Bloom mentions that in his book, I'll have to look up the chapter. Michael
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Unregistered(d)	bible vs. evolution	#35	[url]	[-]
Posts: 0 01/08/03 00:50:16	There has been battles between the ideas of the religious people and the scientific people. The religious believes that God created humans and the earth, while the scientific people believes that we involved from some sort of animal. They treat these ideas as two different separate ideas. But what if both sides were right? God did create the earth and he also created the monkeys. But during that time, they were man. As the man expanded across the world, each evolved because of different conditions and some didn't. As they further evolved, they became more distinct from the others that they still called themselves man and the rest monkeys.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
ZachSylvanus	evolution	#36	[url]	[-]
Posts: 384 01/13/03 15:00:18 Amusingly Clever	See, the problem is that man didn't evolve from monkeys. They had similar ancestor species, but we can see these ancestral species connections through genetics...and most animals are in some degree genetically similar. I don't really understand why there needs to be a creator figure at all, other than because other people can't comprehend either a universe arising and life forming by chance, or because they don't understand the science that forms the other view.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Jeremy1952	Re: Questions about evolution	#37	[url]	[-]
Posts: 907 01/13/03 22:24:32 Enlightened One	Back to the first question of this thread: NaddiaAoC *Quote:* 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? I happened to run across Michael Shermer and S.J. Gould's answer today, while looking for something else: "Scientific facts are data or conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement." (Adapted from Gould's definition of a fact: "In science, 'fact' can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent").
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
xilog	Re: Questions about evolution	#38	[url]	[-]
Posts: 70 01/14/03 18:04:09	I prefer Gould's version. It being "reasonable to offer temporary agreement" is in my opinion insufficient ground to call something a "fact". It is reasonable to offer temporary agreement, for example, to a working hypothesis.
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

Quick Reply