lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Evolution - and how we know it's right
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 01-06-2006, 04:52 PM   #41
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,329
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
Just to clarify something about the Bible, before somebody else objects. The Bible as we have it today pretty much is thanks to the Catholic Church. However, to avoid any misunderstanding:

The "Old Testament" that we have today was written by the Jewish people before the formation of the Christian Church. The writings that Christians call the OT however are somewhat different from what modern Jews use (called the "Tanak"). The order and division of the books is different, for example. The Catholic Church today accepts a longer OT canon (which includes the "Deuterocanon" which means a second canon, added to the collection later) with books like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), 1 & 2 Maccabees, etc. The Greek and Slavonic Orthodox churches also accept these Deuterocanonical books plus a few others (like 1 & 2 Esdras, Psalm 151, etc.). The reason for the additional books is that about 200 years before Christ the Septuigint (meaning "seventy" for the 70-72 Jewish scholars who put it together), a greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament was in use at the time by Jesus and his first followers, who lived in a Hellenized (Greek influenced) Jewish culture. Hebrew texts were known, but Greek was the trade language and many Jews spoke Greek, necessitating the translation in places like Palestine. The Greek text includes some additional material not found in Hebrew versions, like additions to the books of Esther and Daniel, in addition to the extra books. Some Jews considered these sacred scripture, but others disputed them. In about 90 in Jamnia (Yavneh), a group of Jewish Rabbis were assembled after the destruction of the Temple (which occured in 70) and, according to legend, decided on a Hebrew canon, excluding these "extra" books. Of course they also denied canonicity of the books Christians had become to regard as sacred, such as the Gospels and writings of Paul.

Now there is some disagreement today among theologicans/historians as to what actually happened at Jamnia/Yavneh. Some say the Rabbis merely agreed on what was already a "consensus" of Jewish opinion. Others say they basically made up their own rules and then expected those under them to follow them. Others say that they really didn't agree on anything, and it was later that people looked to Jamnia/Yavneh to establish a historical precedent for accepting only certain books as scripture. The main point though is that by the 2nd Century, the mainstream leadership of Judaism felt that they had a collection of books that were sacred scripture, and that was that.

In any case, Christians had their canon (roughly) of the OT and the Jews had their's. Outside of Palestine however, some Jewish groups continued to use the expanded canon, as apparently some Ethiopian Jewish sects do today.

The King James Version, the most famous English translation of the Bible, used by most Protestants today, at least traditionally, is actually one of the last revisions (there were at least eight of them since the original "Authorized Version" produced under King James I in 1611). So when you dig out that copy placed by the Gideons, it's actually not the last revision, but one of the last. Coming from that you have the English Standard Version and the successors to it, culminating with the New Revised Standard Version.

It should be noted that you can order the original KJV 1611 online, and it included notes on textual variants (as the Masoretic Jewish scribes did in the middle ages, preserving the different alternate bits for comparison) and what Protestants call the "Apocrypha" (the Deuterocanonical books as accepted by the Catholic Church, but not the extra books accepted by the Orthodox branches, usually). The Geneva Bible apparently included the new "Protestant Canon" (which followed the Hebrew Canon, but a different order of books, plus the New Testament), but also the Prayer of Manasseh, which it listed as "apocryphal" (Apocryphal means "hidden" which has traditionally been taken to mean either something spurious that must be hidden away to avoid corrupting people's beliefs, or else something esoteric or difficult to understand, requiring a mature believer or more educated reader to fully grasp).

If you crack open a Bible today, you'll see that the Jewish Bible is the shortest, then the Protesant Bible has a second testament tacked on, the Catholic Bible has a bit longer Old Testament, and the Orthodox Bible longer still. Protestant Bibles that include the "Apocrypha" are re-gaining popularity, especially among academic circles. Many bookstores carry them as well. Christian apocryphal writings and other writings not accepted by anyone as sacred scripture within the main large religious bodies (mostly gleaned from the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in the 1940's and early 50's) are also translated and available to the average Joe reader. Last year I saw in my bookstore the "Gnostic Bible" which is somewhat of a misnomer because there really was never an official "canon" of Gnostic works (Marcion, the famous leader often connected with historical Gnosticism is credited with the first "Christian" canon that only he and his followers accepted, but it included books taken from the New Testament only).

Anyway, sorry to ramble with the history lesson, but essentially what we have today is more or less what they had back in the day, but translated, and the order of books and what books are accepted is disputed between different faith groups.

Without the Catholic Church's preservation of the texts from the time of the first century through the middle ages until the present time, we may not have had a Bible as intact as we did to translate into modern vernacular tongues. The New Testament of course was produced in a time when the Christian Church was united (barring a few heresies that existed within the main church, such as the Gnostics and Arians).

The discovering of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 and their subsequent translation has shown the care with which the texts were preserved by the Catholic Church. Variations exist, but no extensive corruption as some alleged or feared before their final complete release to the public in the 1990's.

It should also be pointed out that non-Orthodox/non-Catholic Christians do not all come from the Catholic Church. Many come from each other, and some were formed independantly in recent times. But as for the Bible, yes, they all essentially owe it to the Catholic Church and the historical foundation also from that Church, whether they wish to admit it or not.

Despite common usage, some Protestant Chrisitans also object to the term "Protestant," preferring the term "Christian" or the name of their denomination. Apparently the term began (as do many labels, including "Christian" and the "Roman" in "Roman Catholic") as something of an insult, but was later adopted as a badge of honor and stuck. Typically most people mean "Protestant" to refer either to a church intellectually connected to the Reformations of the 16th century or simply a Christian who is not Orthodox or Catholic.

Speaking of labels, it can be difficult discussing the things sometimes because people do reject labels. Many fundamentalists label self-identified Christian groups that differ from them "too much" doctrinally to not be Christians. So you get Catholics lumped in by them with groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc. Now I personally object to such lumping since these groups diverged from Protestantism in part and in very recent times (100-200 years ago tops). Not all of these fundamentalists reject Penetecostalism, which also came about fairly recently (150-100 years ago). And even the term "fundamentalism" is problematic as a catch-all term. But if somebody says my Church isn't Christian, I'm inclined to think of them as one, unless they can prove to me otherwise.

It could be said that all Christians, except extremely liberal ones (ranging from former Anglican Bishop Shelby Spong to the Jesus Seminar folks) are fundamentalists to some degree (insisting on certain doctrines to be held to be a Christian) it's just that certain groups have more stringent rules and apply them to those even outside their congregations.

Sorry for the long post, I just thought I'd throw that in there, since religion was tied into this discussion of Evolution. For the most part Christian churches accept evolution, not as dogma or revelation, but as a fairly solid scientific theory that need not conflict with religious faith. Many rank and file Christians probably say they reject evolution, at least according to polls, but evolutionary theory is poorly understood by the general American public, so this is not altogether surprising. Their churches for the most part don't have a problem with it, so long as you still acknowledge that God is the source of all life, and humankind is in the image of God.


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-08-2006, 04:57 PM   #42
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Something I've found that really is interesting (be warned - it's about 2 hours long!):

HTTP Download -Not a direct link-
Streaming @ Youtube

Basically it's a take on both evolution and intelligent design. The speaker is Dr. Kenneth Miller, a witness for the Dover trial and proponent of evolution. He does make it clear that he supports it, but even if you don't think it's correct you can learn quite a lot from it.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-08-2006, 05:33 PM   #43
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Oh, yes, Miller is always worth your time. He absolutely eviscerated the Dover Dolts...

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-08-2006, 07:23 PM   #44
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Mentioned during the Q&A after Dr. Miller's lecture: http://www.venganza.org/

Gotta love that site!


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-09-2006, 12:57 AM   #45
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
Oh, yes, Miller is always worth your time. He absolutely eviscerated the Dover Dolts...
Yeah, he did. If you've read the court documents here, it really shows. Personally I think it's amazing that the board could decide that it was appropriate to put ID in schools in the first place.

Something about the video though - He says here's the evidence for in between species with Ambulocetans natans (I believe), but I'm not sure how much evidence there actually is for it. Reconstructions are fine, but I'm wondering exactly how much of the skeleton was found to base it on. (about 30mins in)

However, the evidence he presents later, using chromosome 2, is unambiguous and quite clear. He makes his point very well. I really don't see how anyone can continue to believe ID in the same way as it was presented at the trial (as an alternative to evolution).

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 01-09-2006 at 01:34 AM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-09-2006, 01:09 AM   #46
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
I wrote the following at another forum (a science forum, believe it or not) in which I was debating a proponent of 'intelligent' design. I borrowed heavily from Dr. Miller's "The Flagellum Unspun - The Collapse of Irreducible Complexity, but used some more recent references for the TTSS & Flagellum discussion. I couldn't access some of the ones he cited:"

Quote:
[T]he concept of irreducible complexity is not useless… It makes you think about the nature of systems and their origins. It doesn't necessarily makes you ignorant like Robison claims. It is also a tool of falsification for those who believe all biological systems have arisen through evolution without intelligent agents. It's a pitty that it comes from a man like Behe. Otherwise it may have gotten the proper attention it deserves.
It actually originates from Darwin, believe it or not. In his Origin of Species (1859: 191), Darwin writes that if there existed an organ or organism that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," the "theory [of evolution] would absolutely break down." Behe and others have obviously read this and used it as their weapon against science. The anti-science community called it 'irreducible complexity' and declared that there were systems that could not have evolved because the removal of just one part would cause the entire system to fail (Behe 1996; 2002). Behe, and other anti-science types, have cited the bacterial flagellum as one of the several systems that fit this mold.

Other systems cited by Behe include the vertebrate blood clotting cascade and eukaryotic cilium, but the bacterial flagellum is the most significant it would seem. Homologous to the basal region of the bacterial flagellum is a mechanism known as a type-III secretory system (TTSS), which transmits toxins to the cells of bacterial hosts. It's been demonstrated that the TTSS remains completely functional even with most of the parts of the flagellum itself. The research (Aizawa 2001; Briggs et al 2004; McNab 2004; Yonekura 2000) wasn't conducted with the desire to disprove so-called 'irreducible complexity,' but rather the need to better understand the nature of bacteria.

With regard to the cascade system of clotting blood, Behe says the following (1996, 84-86):
Quote:
When an animal is cut, a protein called Hagemann factor (XII) sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hagemann factor is then cleaved by a protein called HMK to yield activated Hagemann factor. Immediately the activated Hagemann factor converts another protein, called prekallikrein, to its active form, kallikrein. [...]none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a clot. Yet in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails.
Factor XII, mentioned in the quote above, initiates the cascade. If Behe is correct, the absence of this protein would result in blood that doesn't clot. Yet, dolphins don't have it (Robinson, Kasting & Aggeler 1969). Their blood clots just fine. Neither factor XII nor prekallikrein are present in the puffer fish (Jiang & Doolittle 2003).

The concept of 'irreducible complexity' is, indeed, useless for offering any sort of logical explanation. Analogies of mousetraps and other machines are irrelevant. These are demonstrably designed systems and are not being suggested to be created by nature. Nature does, however, have its own "mouse traps" with systems of predator-prey organisms, but none have been demonstrated to be 'irreducibly' complex in any way. I challenge anyone here to show a natural system or organism that cannot operate without all of its parts.


References:

Aizawa, S.-I. (2001). Bacterial flagella and type III secretion systems, FEMS Microbiology Letters, 202 (2), 157-164.

Behe, M. (1996). Darwin's Black Box. New York: The Free Press.

Behe, M. (2002). The challenge of irreducible complexity. Natural History 111 (April), 74.

Briggs, L.J.; Davidge, J.A.; Wickstead, B.; Ginger, M.L.; Gull, K. (2004) More than one way to build a flagellum: comparative genomics of parasitic protozoa. Current Biology, 14 (15), R611-R612.

Darwin, C. (1872). The Origin of Species (6th edition). London: Oxford University Press.

McNab, R. M. (2004). Type III flagellar protein export and flagellar assembly. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Cell Research 1694 (1-3) 207-217.

Miller, K. R. (2002-2004). The Flagellum Unspun - The Collapse of Irreducible Complexity. In Ken Miller's Evolution Page (Evolution Resources). Retrieved 8106, from http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...2/article.html.

Jiang, Y. and Doolittle, R.F. (2003). The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100 (13), 7527-7532.

Robinson, A. J., M. Kropatkin, and P. M. Aggeler (1969). Hagemann Factor (Factor XII) Deficiency in Marine Mammals. Science, 166, 1420-1422.

Yonekura, K., S. Maki, D. G. Morgan, D. J. DeRosier, F.Vonderviszt, K.Imada, and K. Namba (2000). The Bacterial Flagellar Cap as the Rotary Promoter of Flagellin Self-Assembly, Science, 290 (5499), 2148-2152.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-09-2006, 02:13 AM   #47
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurgan
Sorry for the long post, I just thought I'd throw that in there, since religion was tied into this discussion of Evolution. For the most part Christian churches accept evolution, not as dogma or revelation, but as a fairly solid scientific theory that need not conflict with religious faith. Many rank and file Christians probably say they reject evolution, at least according to polls, but evolutionary theory is poorly understood by the general American public, so this is not altogether surprising. Their churches for the most part don't have a problem with it, so long as you still acknowledge that God is the source of all life, and humankind is in the image of God.
Exactly.

"...the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God." - Pius XII

There is an nice read about the Catholic view on evolution here.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-09-2006, 02:25 PM   #48
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Boy, do I wish they'd stop being so mealy-mouthed and spell it out in cardboard:

"We do not have a position on the Theory of Evolution, because we do not find ourselves sufficiently qualified in the application and results of modern science to commit to a position. And because it's none of our business anyway. And no, we don't have a position on the Theory of Gravity, or the Standard Model, or Cosmological Inflation, either. Nor, for that matter, do we have a position on Keynesian economics or the viability of the Welfare State. We're not here to do your high school homework."

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-11-2006, 11:56 AM   #49
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
There was an interersting programme on Channel 4 (UK) a night or so back where an Oxford Professor (biology?) challenged the way religion is attacking evolution. The programme was called "Root of all evil?" and was actually mainly his opinion that religion is a very backward thinking concept and is causing all sorts of damage to the world. He wasn't entirely focussing on evolution, but also covered things like other science, conraception, religions extremism and hatred, etc.. I think there is a part 2 next week.

There was an interesting part where he went to a big southern evangelical centre to talk to the head guy, and the guy was claiming that if you "talked to scientists you wouldn't find any two of them that agreed on the way evolution worked".
The (world leading) scientist then said that he had never met any, and was told he obviously talked to the wrong scientists... and to stop being arrogant.

Then later some guy drove up in his pickup and shouted at them to get out of town and stop "calling his kids animals". Was weird.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-11-2006, 12:44 PM   #50
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Richard Dawkins is the Man!


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-12-2006, 10:32 AM   #51
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
You know, I actually wish Dawkins would tone down his displays of his own metaphysical beliefs or lack thereof and concentrate on the science. The two should not be mixed. I have a pretty strong ethical code (in my own not so humble opinion), but I don't go flaunt it in the same sentence that I talk about Lorentz contraction or Schrödinger's cat.

Hard-line, shortest-distance-between-two-points, propaganda has its time and place. But this day and age is not it. Worldwide we have a neo-religious movement that is gaining in momentum - mainly because our societies walked straight into that obvious ambush all fat, dumb, and happy. Now is the time for subtle propaganda. Guerillia information warfare, if you will. It is time for the telling of those stories that cast the clergy in a realistic light while still showcasing their dirty laundry.

Calling a priest a frothing-at-the-mouth, murderous, raping pedophile won't help - be it ever so true - because those who read it will think merely: Thank God that our priest isn't like that. No, this is a time for moderation. For chipping away at the enemy's armour before you rush in full bore.

One Danish short story stands out in particular in my mind. It is about a woman who goes to her priest to seek a divorce. The priest - of course - tells her that that's impossible. When pressed, the priest admits that adultery is a valid reason for divorce. Then the woman says that adultery is exactly the reason for her seeking divorce. The priest then tells her to her face that if a woman is unfaithful towards her husband, then he is right to seek divorce, but if a man is unfaithful towards his wife, then it is her moral duty to stay in the marriage and support him through what is obviously a hard time.

The genius of that story is that it doesn't really tell the reader anything he doesn't already know at some level. All it really does is compress the timescale to heavily that the hypocricy and goalpost-moving that the clergy is engaged in becomes widely visible and undeniable.

Nobody could accuse it of being 'hateful' or 'anti-christian,' because it faithfully represents the line of argument that the clergy employs - so if they try to attack it, they undermine their own position.

If you shine enlightenment on the clergy, people will see it for what it is and recoil from the hypocricy and deciet. The trick is to shine the light in such a way that it both faithfully illuminates the target and gets past the superficial trappings of morality and knee-jerk rejection of critisism that are so integral parts of religion.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-16-2006, 05:17 AM   #52
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
You know, I think that's perfectly true (I love it when people make me think!). Not bad coming from someone with less than 1000 posts.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-16-2006, 12:12 PM   #53
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Not bad coming from someone with less than 1000 posts.
That's because it counts posts, not words :-D

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-16-2006, 02:28 PM   #54
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
But is it? (just wondering, not saying)

It today's society you don't get heard with subtle. You don't get listened to with balanced arguments. You don't get elected if you admit some form of doubt or uncertainty.
Today's society likes to be told (in a very short soundbite) what to believe.

Thats why unsupported ideas like ID have gained so much ground over supported ideas like Evolution. Because scientists always try to be fair and balanced and mention any uncertainty... whereas their opponents just trot out soundbite theories that SOUND GOOD.

Maybe what is needed IS for people like Prof Dawkins to come out and start fighting back... because sometimes you have to shout to be heard. (As someone who knew a bit about the issues involved i did get a "he's being a bit unbalanced" feeling occasionally... but if everyone on the other side is being unbalanced...
And even given the provocative title he still gave a lot of time to opposing views (the scientist within?) that opponents wouldn't have done. )

Maybe if a few scientist had shouted louder when the idea of ID first came up it wouldn't have taken off the way it did.

PS/ Darn it, i think i missed the 2nd part of the show.

PPS/ Out of interest, would this sort of programme even get shown on US tv, cos the impression i'm getting these days of the US makes me think a programme that set out to attack religion would have no chance over there.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)

Last edited by toms; 01-17-2006 at 09:02 AM.
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-16-2006, 02:57 PM   #55
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
I see your point. However, the neo-religious movement loves shouting match, because shouting matches convey only simplistic messages. Pro-sanity activists cannot rely on simplistic arguments, since that would be the very antithesis of sanity. Besides, the main battlefield is not the traditional political arena - we must fight the battle there as well, and there the Dawkins approach may be needed, but the main battlefront is the litterature. People read. If they don't read, then we need to get on BoEs and damn well teach them to read. People even read books that offer views that are tangential to their own beliefs if the main story is good enough. If we can get our people into the litterary mainstream and isolate the neo-barbs as wingnuts or paint them as ideolouges, we can gradually push the boundries of what is 'acceptable' in litterature and what is 'mainstream' in litterature. But it has to be subtle. People reject political creeds, but if you have a fictional country with a fictional political system that bears little resemblance to your own country and political system, you can use it to broach ideas such as institutional transparency and secularity.

It has been done before. It can be done again.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2006, 01:44 PM   #56
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Interesting article. Scentists have called for chimpanzees to be reclassified into the human genus after discovering that their DNA is actually closer to that of humans than that of other apes such as gorillas and orangutans.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/high...693365,00.html



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2006, 02:32 PM   #57
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
It would probably be more appropriate to re-classify humans to Pan sapiens sapiens rather than to re-classify Pan troglodytes or P. paniscus to the genus Homo.

Still, humanity is to anthropocentric to accept such a move. We still have those among our species that seek to remove populations within the species or cleanse them. We're also far to egocentric to accept the closeness with another animal to allow chimps/bonobos to be reclassified H. troglodytes and H. paniscus. And we're certainly too full of ourselves to allow our own genus to be renamed to P. sapiens sapiens.

The chimps and bonobos may be better off keeping their distance from the human species for the time being.

Still, there is little present in humanity that cannot be found in chimp culture: language, war, politics, sexual behaviors, friendships, altruism, family values, abstract thinking, etc, etc.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2006, 06:26 PM   #58
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
This is all I have to say is I don't believe women crapp. There is a lot of scientific proof I just don't like the idea.

The thought of women crapping is really unattractive. So I believe that a fairy comes in the middle of the night and hits them on the stomach with a little magic wound. This makes their poop go away.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2006, 08:06 PM   #59
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,329
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
Skin.. how about religion? They don't have religion, do they? Or philosophy, or art. They don't have Star Wars, those heathens...!


Another quick thought on some of the latter posts in this thread:

I think it's interesting to argue these things based on ideology. I think some people are doing that or referring to that, ie: people are not arguing it based on how the science or the theology plays out, but rather saying "I'm right, because my world view is more MORAL than your's" or "I'm right because I'm a better person."

So you have religious people saying we can't believe in evolution or it'll turn us all into eugenicists and relativists who kill and rape each other. And we have non-religious people saying we have to teach evolution because otherwise we'll turn into hateful evil religious fundamentalists, etc. Neither approach is particularly useful except for back-patting and cheerleading I think. But it is commonly used in popular rhetoric, so it's a fair point to bring up. Good show. It's almost as if some folks don't want fundamentalists to give up creationism. Because if they do, then they have a more reasonable claim on the world at large in terms of ideology. If we see them wrong about science we can more easily dismiss them and say "oh well see, I don't need to listen to anything you have to say because you dismiss something so obviously true like evolution." In that sense, the boogey-man of fundamentalism is perhaps more useful for propaganda purposes, just like somebody like Fred Phelps is useful to gay rights activists who can then say "and look how bad religious nuts are for opposing gay rights, like this guy."

And you hear it commonly argued by certain Christian (evangelical?) apologists. Well, see what atheistic (this or that) is doing to America/the world? Once you get rid of God, then you get (bad things, bad whatever effects)? So therefore we need to keep/increase religious influence in (whatever). The moral-ideological approach has its limitations, and risks dodging the important issue of facts, in favor of feelings and subjective observations.

PS: That ashermenuitica article is interesting. Of course it looks to be as editable as wikipedia, so some caution is warranted, but the information presented there seems a fairly concise summary of what I've read elsewhere regarding the Vatican and evolution. One quirk in the article is the phrase referring to "neo-darwinism" as "perjorative." I was not aware that it was any way perjorative. Then again, such a thing is quite subjective as well. Some people use the term "liberal" as an insult, whereas others use it as a proper self definition and others merely as a descriptive term. Neo-Darwinism as I understand it is merely the body of Darwinian evolutionary theory, amended to include the knowledge of modern genetics. It is contrasted with the parts of Darwin that we know to be incorrect or incomplete (since theories are modified in light of new evidence to better conform to the world as we learn more). You could use the term "Darwinism" itself as perjorative ("ism" to some people implies a false system), but most people don't use it that way, so I take issue with that language. Anyway, just another random thought.


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2006, 03:44 PM   #60
lord ignarn
Junior Member
 
lord ignarn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: My fortress in Ziost
Posts: 258
Talking about the evolution: If you want a proof here it is. More or less 5000000000 years ago the atmosfere of the Hearth was reductive. But suddenly some bacteries started doing the photosyntesis. And as it´s very efficient to provide energy the atmosfere became oxidant, filled with oxygen. Did bacteries die? No, they evolved, they underwent a process to be able to use oxygen to provide them energy. Of course lots of them died because they didn´t acomodate well. That´s evolution, the most capable to survive eats more, thus reproduces more, thus filles all the space avaliable. Then, the protoeucayotic cell happeared, and integrated inside a oxigen user bacteria. So it could reproduce more, it evolved. that happened 3000000000 years ago, then it took quite little time to develop the multicellular creature, and then, the mammals.

So, that´s evolution. Those integrated bacterias are the mithocondrion. You can read about in any book on microbiology: endosimbiant theory. proposed by Lynn Margulis. Other examples are the presence of non producer dna in the genome, some genes were switched off because they weren´t need.

Because of this and lots of other facts the serious cientific community accepts the evolution theory: the most able to adapt himself to a place will prevail over the others.


"Revenge is never a straight line. It's a forest. And like a forest it's easy to lose your way to get lost When engaged in combat, the vanquishing of thine enemy can be the warrior's only concern. This is the first and cardinal rule of combat. Suppress all human emotion and compassion. Kill whoever stands in thy way, even if that be Lord God, or Buddha himself..."

Hattori Hanzo.
lord ignarn is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2006, 01:28 PM   #61
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Another bit of evolution filled in:

Quote:
Scientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals, showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...748005,00.html

For the past 100 years or so scientists have made 100s of independent discoveries in different fields of science, in different areas of nature and in different parts of the world. Each of these has filled in another blank in the theory of evolution. None of these have disproved the theory of evolution or supported another theory.

Its like a gigantic picture that is slowly being decoded before our eyes... we can see the big picture now, but each subsequent discovery sharpens a part of the image in a small way.

The recent discoveries of the creation of new species, the evolution of eyes and the transition from water to land have pretty much filled in any remaining areas that had been unclear and the recent development of genetic techniques is likely to bring the whole picture into even sharper focus.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2006, 02:22 PM   #62
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
One question I have for people who believe in, say, intelligent design or creationism or whatever outside of evolution, is how does your theory deal with the several mass extinctions the Earth has gone through?

I understand that while the most recent mass extinction 65 mya that brought about the death of the dinosaurs as well as 75% of all the other species on the planet was most likely caused by meteorite impact, (perhaps meteorites are outside of the skills of the intelligent designer?) many of the other mass extinctions are thought to be brought about by natural processes. In particular, the mass extinction at the end of the permian period where as much as 96% of life on the Earth died out is thought to have been brought about by climate change.

There are at least 4 other well known mass extinctions, and how does this fit into the scope of intelligent design? Is the designer just not that intelligent? Made a planet-full of species and then decided that they really weren't that good? Scrap it and make a new batch?



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-11-2006, 11:58 AM   #63
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Well, I don't believe in 'Intelligent Design', but I could imagine that mass extinctions might not necessarily fit into a "Intelligent Designer's" plan. Accidents so to say. An arbortive experiment maybe. Simply things that happen to scientists all over the world.

I mean it's Intelligent Design not Omnipotent Design. :P


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-11-2006, 02:56 PM   #64
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
There are at least 4 other well known mass extinctions, and how does this fit into the scope of intelligent design? Is the designer just not that intelligent? Made a planet-full of species and then decided that they really weren't that good? Scrap it and make a new batch?
I think you're mixing up intelligent design with supernatural design. I know that intelligent design exists and it's easily demonstrable, but I sure don't believe that trying to find a supernatural cause for design is useful for anything besides metaphysics.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-11-2006, 03:03 PM   #65
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Intelligent design exists when the term is applied to those things that are designed by humanity. Until such time as we can demonstrate that other worlds exist, this is all we can mean when we refer to "intelligent" design.

But the creationist nutters are referring to the design by a god. This has no evidential support and the entire premise is pseudoscience.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-11-2006, 04:24 PM   #66
IG-64
Moderator
 
IG-64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, Tx.
Posts: 5,958
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
The creation explanation can be immediately disgarded, since there are many hundreds of variations of these and none are testable.
Just because it isn't testable, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Also, you are leaving out of this "debate" a very large majority of the world's population with that statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I make the distinction because in nearly every evolution argument I've been in, within a few posts the opponent to the fact of evolution will bring up the beginning of the universe.
That's because in the creation theory, the origin of species and the origin of the universe usually go hand-in-hand.

To me, this thread doesn't seem like a debate. It seems more like an excuse to tell each other how great the evolution theory is. Because you said that you disregarded creation because it can't be tested. And you have already stated that evolution is the only theory that is a demonstrable mechanism to explain our existence. Therefore you will disregard anyone who believes anything other than evolution. Therefore this thread is pointless.
IG-64 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-11-2006, 04:36 PM   #67
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Just because it isn't testable, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Alright, but, it must be fair to say then that even though you can't test that the sun is made of cheese, doesn't mean it's not made of cheese.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Also, you are leaving out of this "debate" a very large majority of the world's population with that statement.
If there's anything we've learned throughout history, it's that being in the majority doesn't make you right.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-11-2006, 04:56 PM   #68
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
I know that intelligent design exists and it's easily demonstrable,
Are you discussing intelligent design in the matter of the creation of all life on this planet? Because if so...I'd love to see that demonstration.

Generally when discussing "Intelligent Design" it's being applied to the belief that the creation of life on this planet was at least guided by some "designer". If this is the case, why did the designer decide to eradicate so much of it's work? For it to be a viable theory it MUST be able to explain why those happened.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-11-2006, 05:18 PM   #69
IG-64
Moderator
 
IG-64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, Tx.
Posts: 5,958
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Alright, but, it must be fair to say then that even though you can't test that the sun is made of cheese, doesn't mean it's not made of cheese.
That's different. Because that's disprovable. There just... aren't enough cows.
Point is, creation isn't really disprovable. And you must remember that there is some basis for creation. It's not just something people believe out of spite. And not all creationists are just delusional.

Quote:
If there's anything we've learned throughout history, it's that being in the majority doesn't make you right.
That might be true in some cases, but not always. Besides, that wasn't really my point. I wasn't saying being in the majority makes me right, I was saying that if you're looking for debating opponets who don't believe in creation or evolution. Well... that's a rather small opposition.
IG-64 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-11-2006, 11:21 PM   #70
JoeŠ
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Still playing guild wars
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
One question I have for people who believe in, say, intelligent design or creationism or whatever outside of evolution, is how does your theory deal with the several mass extinctions the Earth has gone through?

I understand that while the most recent mass extinction 65 mya that brought about the death of the dinosaurs as well as 75% of all the other species on the planet was most likely caused by meteorite impact, (perhaps meteorites are outside of the skills of the intelligent designer?) many of the other mass extinctions are thought to be brought about by natural processes. In particular, the mass extinction at the end of the permian period where as much as 96% of life on the Earth died out is thought to have been brought about by climate change.

There are at least 4 other well known mass extinctions, and how does this fit into the scope of intelligent design? Is the designer just not that intelligent? Made a planet-full of species and then decided that they really weren't that good? Scrap it and make a new batch?
No matter what theory you believe in, whether we came from the sea or God made us as described in genesis. Both would have had to survive mass extinction's.
JoeŠ is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-11-2006, 11:37 PM   #71
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeŠ
No matter what theory you believe in, whether we came from the sea or God made us as described in genesis. Both would have had to survive mass extinction's.
That's kind of the point. Most things didn't survive the mass extinctions...that's why they're called mass extinctions.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 12:03 AM   #72
JoeŠ
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Still playing guild wars
Posts: 306
Then your point is.... pointless? You asked how did mass extinction's fit into ID, and I was saying they go to evolution too. So do you just like hearing yourself speak or is there actully (holds breath) a point?
JoeŠ is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 12:40 AM   #73
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Evolution has an explanation for maxx extinction. Creatures die out due to changing conditions that they are incapable of adapting to. (Or in the case of the K-T extinction, they get vaporized by a giant meteor)

But if you don't believe in the survival of the fittest model, then why did everything die? I'm not saying that they DON'T explain it, I'm just asking what the explanation IS.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 12:48 AM   #74
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
Are you discussing intelligent design in the matter of the creation of all life on this planet? Because if so...I'd love to see that demonstration.

Generally when discussing "Intelligent Design" it's being applied to the belief that the creation of life on this planet was at least guided by some "designer". If this is the case, why did the designer decide to eradicate so much of it's work? For it to be a viable theory it MUST be able to explain why those happened.
No, I was meaning pretty much what Skinwalker said. Using the supernatural in intelligent design is kind of like dividing by infinity. It doesn't come up with a meaningful answer, because you can't define God.

Your second point- the designer doesn't exactly need to watch what the things it created are doing, nor does it have to care about them. Whether or not they get smacked by an asteroid is kind of irrelevant to whether they were designed or not.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 12:51 AM   #75
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Hey, who is this so-called "intelligent designer" anyway?

I've seen supporters of the "theory" asked that many times, and yet they can't exactly answer that question...
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 01:00 AM   #76
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Hey, who is this so-called "intelligent designer" anyway?

I've seen supporters of the "theory" asked that many times, and yet they can't exactly answer that question...
That's because they don't have an answer. It's not required to know who the designer is to use ID. Basically all ID says is that things which are more complex are more likely to have been designed (especially if that complexity is not natural, a la crystal formations).


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 01:06 AM   #77
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
That's because they don't have an answer. It's not required to know who the designer is to use ID. Basically all ID says is that things which are more complex are more likely to have been designed (especially if that complexity is not natural, a la crystal formations).
That's maybe a guess, at best. Not a theory, not even a hypothesis.

In order to be considered, "ID" needs to be able to come up with some evidence that there is an intelligent designer.

We all know that this is just creationism in disguise... let's be honest here. That's why so many Christians are behind it (except the Pope... he says evolution is right!) and the science community is against it.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 01:10 AM   #78
IG-64
Moderator
 
IG-64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, Tx.
Posts: 5,958
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Hey, who is this so-called "intelligent designer" anyway?

I've seen supporters of the "theory" asked that many times, and yet they can't exactly answer that question...
Depends on what religion. If it's Chritianity it's simply the God of the bible. What more do you need? Or are you really just asking where he came from? Becuase he's always been. I think in any theory of existance you have to have something that's always been there.
IG-64 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 01:12 AM   #79
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Depends on what religion. If it's Chritianity it's simply the God of the bible. What more do you need? Or are you really just asking where he came from? Becuase he's always been. I think in any theory of existance you have to have something that's always been there.
So this theory is only valid if you are religious?

If you're an atheist, who is the intelligent designer?
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 01:59 AM   #80
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
That's maybe a guess, at best. Not a theory, not even a hypothesis.

In order to be considered, "ID" needs to be able to come up with some evidence that there is an intelligent designer.
Ususally, it's paired up with the idea of Irreducible Complexity, which makes it harder to dismiss. Even then, many of the supposedly irreducibly complex organisms that the ID/IC supporters have chosen turn out not really to be IC. Then they move to the next 'IC' bit of life. It's clearly not going to stop them to show that they are wrong in any given situation, and it's impossible to show that they are wrong in all situations.

Quote:
We all know that this is just creationism in disguise... let's be honest here. That's why so many Christians are behind it (except the Pope... he says evolution is right!) and the science community is against it.
Right. If you want to read some more about why ID is useless when trying to prove God, try some of Immanuel Kant's writings.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Evolution - and how we know it's right

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:06 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.