Philosophy Now Forum

Wyman wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:

WanderingLands wrote:There are some evidence and arguments that can be made against Evolution.... Of course, many scientists defending evolution would say that it takes somewhere between millions (or to possibly billions) of years to somehow 'evolve', which is of course a poor ad hoc reasoning for why we don't see any evolving creatures.

Then there is also idea that we evolve due to 'chance' by 'mutation', ...

etc. etc.

WL,
You have made a serious error in your OP, but a common one. A philosophy student would probably label it a category mistake.

Evolution is not the same as Darwinism.

Evolution is the general name given to processes of incremental progressive changes to something, over the course of time. It applies to "species" that are engineered by intelligent beings, e.g. weapons, automobiles, computers. It also applies to species believed by many to have come into existence via "natural," or non-intelligent causes, such as bacteria, dinosaurs, and monkeys.

Your misdirected argument needs to be redirected, because biological evolution is perhaps the most obvious complex truth in all of science. It is as real and factual as the rotation of the earth/moon system around the sun.

May I recommend that you direct your complaints where they belong --to neo-Darwinism, the absurd theory that poorly informed and illogical atheists promote by way of an explanation for evolution?

From the responses to your post it would appear that you've sucked a number of other wanna-be philosophers into your category mistake. What a surprise.

BTW, the arguments that you chose, presumably against Darwinism, are dreadfully weak. They have all been refuted by professional Darwinist apologists to the satisfaction of pseudo-science camp followers. You will find irrefutable arguments in Chapter XIII, "Beon Theory vs. Darwinism," in my politically incorrect book, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul.

Biological evolution v. evolution v. Evolution v. Natural selection - aren't they all different? Do you ever watch the 'Shark Tank?' I'm going to start calling you 'Mr. Wonderful.'

Wyman,

Most are different from one another, and, so what? Biological evolution is a specific variety of evolution, distinguished from the evolution of aircraft, but Wandering did not make that distinction.

Whether the word is capitalized or not seems irrelevant in the absence of context.

"Natural selection" has nothing to do with Darwinism or evolution. NS is the process that determined why the Studebaker and Yugo motor companies went out of business, and why countries run by communists eventually fail. It explains why rolls of soft toilet paper appear appear on market shelves instead of dried corn cobs. Yes, it also explains the absence of Dodo birds.

I watched Shark Tank two or three times, only because I was recuperating from an aftermarket hip job at my ex's home, and her interests differ from mine. Nothing new there for me; I've started several businesses and worked for others, and successfully negotiated with Lockheed's Ph.D scientists and business people.

BTW the uselessness of Natural Selection as a Darwinist principle is marked by the fact that it also applies to the creation of critters by God. Whether random chance or deliberate engineering produces the beasties populating our planet is irrelevant to the fact that the resultant beasties need to successfully compete for food and avoid becoming food in too big a hurry.

Greylorn

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:...A philosophy student would probably label it a category mistake...

Saying that evolution is the same as Darwinism would be an association fallacy, not a category error.

Ginkgo,
Thank you! I used "probably" in my comment in anticipation of complaints.

Before using the phrase I found this definition via Google:

"A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category, or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property."

I just now looked up "association fallacy," having not heard of the term before. Here's Wikipedia's take on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

I must disagree with you. The notion of "guilt by association" does not apply to the distinctions between a phenomenon and a theory designed to explain it. I'm sticking with "category mistake," which is also semantically more clear.

Thanks anyway.
Greylorn

uwot wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: You will find irrefutable arguments in Chapter XIII, "Beon Theory vs. Darwinism," in my politically incorrect book, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul.

C'mon Greylorn; you know full well that irrefutable arguments are ten a penny. Gimme a couple of premises and I'll prove whatever you want. The skill is to construct premises that support and are supported by evidence.
The day you make a claim that could be verified by means you can outline is the day I buy your book.

The only premises I use in my book's refutations of Darwinism are those made by Darwinists.

None are worth trying to detail on this forum.

I don't want you to buy my book. You won't understand it and that would piss you off, so you'd deal with that by giving it bad reviews. My fifty-cent profit is not worth the grief.

I wrote the book for people who are genuinely interested in alternative ideas about the beginnings of things. You are satisfied with the beliefs you've been given, and not ready to accept anything beyond that-- unless the agreement system that taught you changes what passes in it for mind. You would not muster the courage required to even consider ideas that diverge from any mainstream. I could be wrong, but that's my current best assessment. And that's all okay. I'm simply inviting you to not explain why you won't read my book, so that I don't have to lie awake all night worrying about that.

What you study, or what subjects you choose to remain ignorant of, or why, is your business. Don't try to make it mine because I don't care.

Greylorn

WanderingLands wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Why don't you actually learn some science before you comment on it? And I don't mean pseudo-science. We evolved INTO apes. Other apes, like chimpanzees, are modern animals, just as evolved as we are.
If you spent more time reading about science instead of the crap you fill your head with then this thread wouldn't exist.

If you looked into the Darwin Conspiracy site, you would see that there are differences between the DNA structure of humans and that of chimpanzees. The website shows a study from Nature magazine, that was commenting on how humans actually have 78 genes and that chimpanzees only have 37 in comparing the Y chromosomes. May I show you an excerpt of this?

APE AND HUMAN CHROMOSOMES ARE NOT 98% IDENTICAL

BUT ARE TOO DIFFERENT FOR EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN

Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.

One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.

During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome. For example:

In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)

The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."

Nonetheless, they found that:

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.

Below are maps of the Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/home_files/image001.gif

The top map is the Chimpanzee Y chromosome and the lower map is the human Y chromosome.

"Ape to human evolution" theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary.

That is obviously baloney - there is no way that could have happened.

There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes in the Chimpanzee Y chromosome to become the human Y chromosome.

The two chromosomes are so different it is like comparing the chromosomes of humans to those of chickens.

The regions of both chromosomes are color coded to identify the gene family or DNA type as follows (MSY means male specific region of the Y chromosome):

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/home_files/image002.gif

APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE

APES AND HUMANS CANNOT ADD GENES TO THEIR GENOMES


The same research paper also revealed that the human Y chromosome has at least 35 more genes than the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Below is the gene table:

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/home_files/image004.jpg

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have 41 more genes.

This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes. In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.

But apes do not have any "gene generating system."

Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."

This means that "ape to human evolution" theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.

This is ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE that proves "ape to human evolution" is impossible,

Perhaps another article, at the end of the OP, is another one you can read, entitled, "Junk DNA - Not So Useless After All". Then again, I'll leave it up to you.

Your information is dreadfully incorrect. The human genome contains approximately 23,000 distinct genes, not 78. You appear to be insufficiently competent to be discussing science. Are you a 15 year-old kid trying to learn microbiology from religious blogs populated by ignorant people? Reputable sources of information are readily accessible.

Greylorn

WanderingLands wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: WL,
You have made a serious error in your OP, but a common one. A philosophy student would probably label it a category mistake.

Evolution is not the same as Darwinism.

Evolution is the general name given to processes of incremental progressive changes to something, over the course of time. It applies to "species" that are engineered by intelligent beings, e.g. weapons, automobiles, computers. It also applies to species believed by many to have come into existence via "natural," or non-intelligent causes, such as bacteria, dinosaurs, and monkeys.

Your misdirected argument needs to be redirected, because biological evolution is perhaps the most obvious complex truth in all of science. It is as real and factual as the rotation of the earth/moon system around the sun.

May I recommend that you direct your complaints where they belong --to neo-Darwinism, the absurd theory that poorly informed and illogical atheists promote by way of an explanation for evolution?

From the responses to your post it would appear that you've sucked a number of other wanna-be philosophers into your category mistake. What a surprise.

BTW, the arguments that you chose, presumably against Darwinism, are dreadfully weak. They have all been refuted by professional Darwinist apologists to the satisfaction of pseudo-science camp followers. You will find irrefutable arguments in Chapter XIII, "Beon Theory vs. Darwinism," in my politically incorrect book, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul.

Yes - I am familiar with the fact that there are other evolutionary theories that are separate from Darwinianism, but my post nonetheless was meant to challenge and/or bring refutation to the common essential within evolution itself; that there is some sort of 'evolutionary change' within human and other animal organisms. I prefer you bring your arguments to this thread, and see how it can debunk my sources, which challenges the ideas of evolution by positing that human DNA is different from other animal DNA.

You obviously did not comprehend what I wrote, simple as it was. In my previous comment I made another correction, that one at the level of very serious detail.

I do not believe that you are capable of understanding any aspect of the subject you've tackled. You continue to conflate "evolution" with "Darwinism." Arguing with you would be a waste of time. Get an education, please, before babbling onward about subjects that confuse you.

Greylorn

There's no point in 'arguing' with you because you are only ever going to refer to creationist lie-sites. You make me sick.

Greylorn Ell wrote:Your information is dreadfully incorrect. The human genome contains approximately 23,000 distinct genes, not 78. You appear to be insufficiently competent to be discussing science. Are you a 15 year-old kid trying to learn microbiology from religious blogs populated by ignorant people? Reputable sources of information are readily accessible.

The information that I presented specifically talked about the Y chromosome, not how many genes overall a human has. By the way, I'm a lot older than 15.

Greylorn Ell wrote:You obviously did not comprehend what I wrote, simple as it was. In my previous comment I made another correction, that one at the level of very serious detail.

I do not believe that you are capable of understanding any aspect of the subject you've tackled. You continue to conflate "evolution" with "Darwinism." Arguing with you would be a waste of time. Get an education, please, before babbling onward about subjects that confuse you.

Again here, you misunderstood what I have said. I said that I did understand that there were many types of evolution that differed from Darwinism (ie. Larmark and anti-Darwinists); I was just simply challenging the overall tenet of evolution as simply a belief that humans evolve - beyond whatever version there is.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
BTW the uselessness of Natural Selection as a Darwinist principle is marked by the fact that it also applies to the creation of critters by God. Whether random chance or deliberate engineering produces the beasties populating our planet is irrelevant to the fact that the resultant beasties need to successfully compete for food and avoid becoming food in too big a hurry.

Greylorn

A very odd thing to say, as NS is the central plank of Darwin's theory, inferred from a lifetime of observation of the natural world, and domestic selection. I'm sure if he had seen the demise of the Yugo he might even has used that as an analogy for variation under domestication.

The only thing is does not reference is knowledge (DNA and genes were unknown to science, although implied by Mendel), of the units of inheritability (genes), which remarkably enough, his theory predicts.

WanderingLands wrote: Again here, you misunderstood what I have said. I said that I did understand that there were many types of evolution that differed from Darwinism (ie. Larmark and anti-Darwinists); I was just simply challenging the overall tenet of evolution as simply a belief that humans evolve - beyond whatever version there is.

It is quite interesting that Darwin never dismissed Lamark's idea of acquired characteristics, thinking that NS was not quite enough to explain all the variatey of life and the amazing ability of life to "find a way", as it were.
Although his books OoS, and the DoM, are both expositions of NS, he includes Lamarkian evolution in both books.
He spent some years after the publications of these books, with his cousin Galton, to try to prove evolution of acquired characteristics, by mutilating 100s of rabbits. He eventually gave up by 1871, and devoted the rest of his time to the study of worms.

{I can give you chapter and verse if you wish}.

I think he was genuinely disappointed with the idea that inheritable characteristics did not change (were not improvable through the efforts of one's life. He was a vigorous campaigner against slavery and feared that his work would play into the hands of the anti-abolitionists.

WanderingLands wrote:There are some evidence and arguments that can be made against Evolution. An argument against evolution would be the fact that a body of all the species on Earth are composed with complexity - almost mechanically but still in an original organic way. Looking at the way live bodies work, there is hardly (if any) observation of any body parts that are evolving into anything new whatsoever. Of course, many scientists defending evolution would say that it takes somewhere between millions (or to possibly billions) of years to somehow 'evolve', which is of course a poor ad hoc reasoning for why we don't see any evolving creatures.

Actually we see evolution in action everyday.
If you really want to make a critique of the theories of evolution, you really have to spent a little time finding out about it.
Evolution is not a theory used to impose on the living world.
Evolutionary theory is a body of thought used to explain the evolution which is evident, already present.

The data, the evidence comes first and has been part of human knowledge for thousands of years. It was Hippocrates who is credited with the earliest attempt to explain evolution, long before some guy was nailed to a cross for suggesting we might be better off being nice to one another. Sadly it was the church which followed him that put the brakes on evolutionary study.

But there is no doubt that the evidence predates the theories by,,, well.. billions of years.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:...A philosophy student would probably label it a category mistake...

Saying that evolution is the same as Darwinism would be an association fallacy, not a category error.

Ginkgo,
Thank you! I used "probably" in my comment in anticipation of complaints.

Before using the phrase I found this definition via Google:

"A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category, or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property."

I just now looked up "association fallacy," having not heard of the term before. Here's Wikipedia's take on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

I must disagree with you. The notion of "guilt by association" does not apply to the distinctions between a phenomenon and a theory designed to explain it. I'm sticking with "category mistake," which is also semantically more clear.

Thanks anyway.
Greylorn

No problem. My pleasure.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:
BTW the uselessness of Natural Selection as a Darwinist principle is marked by the fact that it also applies to the creation of critters by God. Whether random chance or deliberate engineering produces the beasties populating our planet is irrelevant to the fact that the resultant beasties need to successfully compete for food and avoid becoming food in too big a hurry.

Greylorn

A very odd thing to say, as NS is the central plank of Darwin's theory, inferred from a lifetime of observation of the natural world, and domestic selection. I'm sure if he had seen the demise of the Yugo he might even has used that as an analogy for variation under domestication.

The only thing is does not reference is knowledge (DNA and genes were unknown to science, although implied by Mendel), of the units of inheritability (genes), which remarkably enough, his theory predicts.

Odd? Only from the perspective of someone who believes in Darwinism and thus fails to examine its fundamental dogmas.

I've received the same complaint from devout Christians in response to my observations that Christ's transformation of water into wine would have released plenty enough thermonuclear energy to ruin the wine and vaporize Jerusalem.

I'm sorry that Darwin needed to use a lifetime of observation to come up with NS, but his analytical deficiencies are not my problem or fault. I figured out how trivial that principle is when I went shopping in a supermarket after reading "...Origin..." and "...Descent..." when I was 25 years old. Of course there were no supermarkets in his day, so how could he have observed the larger generalization of his trivial principle? It is unfortunate that Yugos had yet to be invented. Perhaps in his day there were no shops whatsoever, and no markets where one might selectively purchase food??

Give me a break from your Darwinist nonsense. I don't worship.

Darwin did not predict DNA, so you can stand up and wipe the brown stains off your lips. He predicted a mechanism by which the characteristics of critters could be changed. He did not specify the details of that mechanism.

As my book explains in detail, DNA cannot possibly be that mechanism. Here's why:

Darwin claimed that intra-species and inter-species changes, by whatever mechanism might eventually be discovered, would be random. Neo-Darwinists have yet to disagree. In fact, the random nature of genetic change, not NS, is the real core of Darwinist belief. After all, NS cannot take effect until a new variety of species comes into being. Therefore, NS is secondary to the random changes that produce a new kind of critter, just as it would be secondary to new critters produced as an act of an almighty God.

The mathematics of random mechanisms are well known, as verified by the financial assets of casino owners. Now that we know about DNA and the genes contained within them, we can easily calculate the probability of a single, small (900 base-pairs) human gene forming by random chance. Darwinists have apparently not bothered to make this trivial calculation, so I did it in their behalf.

Probabilities are measured on a scale from 0 to 1. An event that cannot happen has 0 probability. 1 means that it must happen, or has done so already. The scientific community has had to deal with very low-probability events, and has set the standard for "cannot actually happen" at 10exp-40. That number looks like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001. If I've counted the zeroes correctly, there will be 39 of them. With those kinds of odds for an event, I'll bet a billion dollars against your nickel, once every second, and bankrupt you in whatever time it takes you to lose your entire assets at the rate of five cents per second and not lose a microsecond of sleep worrying that you might win my billion in the process.

Now imagine a number too ugly to actually include in print, 1.4x 10exp-542. That will look like the number above, except that the decimal point will be followed by 541 zeroes, then 14. That is well past the "cannot possibly happen" value expressed above, which, in comparison is a huge number. That ugly, way way past "cannot possibly happen" number is the probability that a single smallish human gene can be assembled via random mechanisms.

What does this mean? It means that Darwin's theories are composed of the same quality of perspicacious thought as the beliefs of Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, whatever.

In common terms, with respect to their ideas about the evolution of biological life, Darwinism and religions are equally full of shit.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

WanderingLands wrote:There are some evidence and arguments that can be made against Evolution. An argument against evolution would be the fact that a body of all the species on Earth are composed with complexity - almost mechanically but still in an original organic way. Looking at the way live bodies work, there is hardly (if any) observation of any body parts that are evolving into anything new whatsoever. Of course, many scientists defending evolution would say that it takes somewhere between millions (or to possibly billions) of years to somehow 'evolve', which is of course a poor ad hoc reasoning for why we don't see any evolving creatures.

Actually we see evolution in action everyday.
If you really want to make a critique of the theories of evolution, you really have to spent a little time finding out about it.
Evolution is not a theory used to impose on the living world.
Evolutionary theory is a body of thought used to explain the evolution which is evident, already present.

The data, the evidence comes first and has been part of human knowledge for thousands of years. It was Hippocrates who is credited with the earliest attempt to explain evolution, long before some guy was nailed to a cross for suggesting we might be better off being nice to one another. Sadly it was the church which followed him that put the brakes on evolutionary study.

But there is no doubt that the evidence predates the theories by,,, well.. billions of years.

LM

You just don't seem to get it. Evolution is a process, which has been determined by competent scientists to be an irrefutable fact. There is excellent evidence for it. Evolution is not a theory.

Darwinism is a theory. Creationism by almighty God is a theory. Are you incapable of making such clear and simple linguistic distinctions? If not, why are you prattling on?

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
Darwin did not predict DNA, so you can stand up and wipe the brown stains off your lips. He predicted a mechanism by which the characteristics of critters could be changed. He did not specify the details of that mechanism. ...

How could he? As he didn't know the mechanism, what he did do was predict that there was one and lo' and behold we found it.

...
Probabilities are measured on a scale from 0 to 1. An event that cannot happen has 0 probability. 1 means that it must happen, or has done so already. The scientific community has had to deal with very low-probability events, and has set the standard for "cannot actually happen" at 10exp-40. That number looks like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001. If I've counted the zeroes correctly, there will be 39 of them. With those kinds of odds for an event, I'll bet a billion dollars against your nickel, once every second, and bankrupt you in whatever time it takes you to lose your entire assets at the rate of five cents per second and not lose a microsecond of sleep worrying that you might win my billion in the process.

Now imagine a number too ugly to actually include in print, 1.4x 10exp-542. That will look like the number above, except that the decimal point will be followed by 541 zeroes, then 14. That is well past the "cannot possibly happen" value expressed above, which, in comparison is a huge number. That ugly, way way past "cannot possibly happen" number is the probability that a single smallish human gene can be assembled via random mechanisms. ...

Once again you forget that probabilities are after the event things.

I'm still waiting for you to recalculate your probabilities with the effect of NS and inheritance in place?

What does this mean? It means that Darwin's theories are composed of the same quality of perspicacious thought as the beliefs of Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, whatever.

In common terms, with respect to their ideas about the evolution of biological life, Darwinism and religions are equally full of shit.

What this means is that you are just another godbotherer who disagrees with other godbotherers and biologists about how species evolved.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:

WanderingLands wrote:There are some evidence and arguments that can be made against Evolution. An argument against evolution would be the fact that a body of all the species on Earth are composed with complexity - almost mechanically but still in an original organic way. Looking at the way live bodies work, there is hardly (if any) observation of any body parts that are evolving into anything new whatsoever. Of course, many scientists defending evolution would say that it takes somewhere between millions (or to possibly billions) of years to somehow 'evolve', which is of course a poor ad hoc reasoning for why we don't see any evolving creatures.

Actually we see evolution in action everyday.
If you really want to make a critique of the theories of evolution, you really have to spent a little time finding out about it.
Evolution is not a theory used to impose on the living world.
Evolutionary theory is a body of thought used to explain the evolution which is evident, already present.

The data, the evidence comes first and has been part of human knowledge for thousands of years. It was Hippocrates who is credited with the earliest attempt to explain evolution, long before some guy was nailed to a cross for suggesting we might be better off being nice to one another. Sadly it was the church which followed him that put the brakes on evolutionary study.

But there is no doubt that the evidence predates the theories by,,, well.. billions of years.

LM

You just don't seem to get it. Evolution is a process, which has been determined by competent scientists to be an irrefutable fact. There is excellent evidence for it. Evolution is not a theory.

Darwinism is a theory. Creationism by almighty God is a theory. Are you incapable of making such clear and simple linguistic distinctions? If not, why are you prattling on?

I suggest you either read what I wrote and respond to it or fuck off.
God is not a theory. It is a wish for which there is no evidence.
I said nothing about "Darwinism" at all.