Evolution.

[ChezGiven 0]

Sleep tight!

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Shades of CT.

 

 

And bang goes my other alias.

[Renton 17759]

 

Specify the experimental design then. I of course agree with the theory but the data we have doesn't lend itself to our standard scientific models.

 

I dont think you have 'observed natural selection in cancer cells' but I understand that theories of resistance to chemo are based on cellular adaptation to environmental forces (either cytostatic or cytotoxic). Resistance however is not necessarily an adaptive strategy, my understanding is that due to the complexity of proliferation mechanisms and the usually narrow nature of targeted therapy is that as one mechanism is inhibited, another can emerge. I'm not a micro-cellular biologist though and I'd have to ask about how stem cells fit into the natural selection model too.

 

Look up 'drosophila soeciation' as an example. But anyway, my point was that you seem to be taking a very narrow view of science in that to qualify it must be based on falsifiable hypotheses. I don't believe this is the case.

[Park Life 70]

All this fiddling around with trinkets and bones as some sort of divination of our past is rife with a deep seated need to make sense of something we needn't fear. Man is limitless and boundless in his nature and there is no measurment for that.

[wolfy 12]

There's a number of things to think about about life on this planet from anyone's personal point of view and not going by past stories and scientific hokus pokus maybe.

I can't say for certain what's what with this evolution carry on but I can go through a number of thoughts of what could have happened from the first life on this planet and dates or years we have been here but it's no more than trying to understand where the universe ends, which in logical thinking terms, it cannot end as to get to a so called end as in coming to a sort of brick wall scenario...you have to wonder what is behind that wall and so on and so on.

 

They say this planet is 6 BILLION years old, yet I think any normal logical person can ask the question of, 'how does anyone know this.'

It's one of the reasons why I question scientists and official theories because much of what we are told to believe is nothing more than guesswork, whilst a good proportion of other stuff is provable.

 

If we look at the planet being 6 billion years old like we are told, then theoretically, we could say that it's possible that human life existed on this planet , potentially 10/20/30 etc times and each time dying out to be re invented again starting with bacteria or whatever.

 

We can go with all sorts of ways like this but in reality we do not have any way of knowing other than what we are brought up to believe by whatever means we are told.

 

I don't buy into any of this but that's not to say it's not how it could have been.

 

We might be the first ever humans to walk this Earth since our creation by whatever means, whether it was bacteria growing into larger and larger mutations if you like, until we got to where we are now and then we have to wonder why every bacteria didn't follow the same route and create human after human after human...maybe it did, yet why isn't it still doing it...did it just stop because the first humans grew up and managed to create their own offspring and so, made the bacteria to human evolving method pointless.

 

They say incest can create deformed babies which would mean we all basically came from an incestuous relationship.

It's head busting and mind boggling to actually think what actually really happened for us to become what we are because we believe we are the ultimate in intelligence, yet we appear (even after all this time) to be weak against the very bacteria which formed us, if that's the case I mean.

 

The thing is, we are really born with a survival instinct body wise, which to me explains why toddlers eat dirt and stuff like that. It's because it's natures way of giving the body the Earth's samples so it can build up a data base against any potential bacteria that can attack it.

In other words, we were probably a 100 times more efficient in the earlier days body wise than we are today, all due to the cleanly way most of us run our lives.

 

It appears we are weaker because we have taken away our bodies ability to identify and fight off potential harmful bacteria because we chemically wash our hair, bodies and ingest many chemicals , even in food that kill of bacteria.

 

It's like typing all the bodies harmful poisons into word and saving it ( the early days) only to start deleting it all and clicking on the no save button.

 

I don't know if anyone will understand what I'm getting at..maybe I'm as mad as a box of semen soaked kleenex tissues but one things for certain....it's a head buster.

Edited September 27, 2012 by wolfy

[Guest CabayeAye]

Wolfy. Deadly serious question here:

 

Are you being serious with that post? Because if you are, I'll bother my arse to sit you down and talk you through each point.

 

If you are WUMmiing, then fair play, you do a very good impression of a mentalist.

[wolfy 12]

Wolfy. Deadly serious question here:

 

Are you being serious with that post? Because if you are, I'll bother my arse to sit you down and talk you through each point.

 

If you are WUMmiing, then fair play, you do a very good impression of a mentalist.

Look mate, I don't start threads to be a wind up merchant at any time.

 

What topics I put, I have a reason for doing so but I know they are controversial, yet I am willing to discuss anything I put and also anything anyone else puts forward without having a dig, as long as those that dispute it, do not expend energy digging at me.

 

All I ask is for everyone who wants to take part, to give their honest, OWN personal thoughts that don't rely on what they are fed by scientists.

I'm not asking for much am I?

[Guest CabayeAye]

Nothing personal!

 

I think the reason your beliefs are so radical is your deeply held scepticism against other peoples evidence. For example if somebody carried out a double blind study into the placebo effect of Homeopathy, provided it was from a reputable source, I'd be inclined to believe the results. However, I feel that you would come to your own conclusions based on personal theory because you seem to distrust other peoples' work.

 

Your argument about satellites highlights this. You claim that they don't exist and offer a variety of anecdotal reasons but you completely ignore the mountain of hard evidence for their existence. I know for a fact that they exist, as I have used sattelite communications in the middle of the rift valley and spoken back to the UK. There is no other way this would have worked, since SHF wouldn't work point to point long enough through the atmosphere and the dish was pointed to the sky!

 

I think you need to come to terms with the fact that there is no global information conspiracy. There is no Matrix or Ministry of Truth. Elvis is dead, JFK was shot by LHO and Phil the Greek didn't murder Diana.

 

Just join in with the global train of thought. We didn't build this civilisation outselves, we have simply added to our forefathers work. Why reinvent the wheel, when you can invent cold fusion.

[wolfy 12]

Nothing personal!

 

I think the reason your beliefs are so radical is your deeply held scepticism against other peoples evidence. For example if somebody carried out a double blind study into the placebo effect of Homeopathy, provided it was from a reputable source, I'd be inclined to believe the results. However, I feel that you would come to your own conclusions based on personal theory because you seem to distrust other peoples' work.

 

Your argument about satellites highlights this. You claim that they don't exist and offer a variety of anecdotal reasons but you completely ignore the mountain of hard evidence for their existence. I know for a fact that they exist, as I have used sattelite communications in the middle of the rift valley and spoken back to the UK. There is no other way this would have worked, since SHF wouldn't work point to point long enough through the atmosphere and the dish was pointed to the sky!

 

I think you need to come to terms with the fact that there is no global information conspiracy. There is no Matrix or Ministry of Truth. Elvis is dead, JFK was shot by LHO and Phil the Greek didn't murder Diana.

 

Just join in with the global train of thought. We didn't build this civilisation outselves, we have simply added to our forefathers work. Why reinvent the wheel, when you can invent cold fusion.

With all due respect, it's your train of thought that tells me that you simply follow what you have been told.

I don't mean that in a bad way towards yourself or to say you are brainwashed in the whole, I just mean that , you are willing and more than eager to accept what you are sold in situations like this.

 

I, subscribed to exactly the same thing as you, SERIOUSLY, for years and years and seen no logical reason to think otherwise until I had some time on my hands or mind, to at the very least scrutinise things.

 

I was closed minded in that I believed everything told to me about history and science and anyone who put forward a theory to the contrary, Listened but done no more than that.

I took onboard what people were saying, yet I didn't register it as any more than a passing thought.

 

You see I started off closed minded and ended up open minded and still do with many things, yet certain things that I've looked into, as in satellites, 'as we are told' , to me are bullshit.

I don;t say this lightly... what I believe in , is what I believe in and what I don;t ...I question.

[ChezGiven 0]

 

 

Look up 'drosophila soeciation' as an example. But anyway, my point was that you seem to be taking a very narrow view of science in that to qualify it must be based on falsifiable hypotheses. I don't believe this is the case.

Then how else do your prove it? How else does something theoretical come to be accepted as knowledge? What is knowledge in that case, the ability to make a strong argument? We acquire knowledge by testing hypotheses, evolution is the only branch of science that isn't really testable. Even the Higgs Boson is tested in experimental design.

 

Until you prove the existence of God, it's just a belief system. Until you prove evolution its not a fact. Strictly adhering to the Popperian model alows us to differentiate between 'likely based on what we know' and 'what we know'. That said Popper's evolutionary epistemology is the most profound thing I have ever read.

[Renton 17759]

 

Then how else do your prove it? How else does something theoretical come to be accepted as knowledge? What is knowledge in that case, the ability to make a strong argument? We acquire knowledge by testing hypotheses, evolution is the only branch of science that isn't really testable. Even the Higgs Boson is tested in experimental design.

 

Until you prove the existence of God, it's just a belief system. Until you prove evolution its not a fact. Strictly adhering to the Popperian model alows us to differentiate between 'likely based on what we know' and 'what we know'. That said Popper's evolutionary epistemology is the most profound thing I have ever read.

 

According to that train of thought nothing has been absolutely proven which to me is clearly nonsense. Sometimes you need a bit of common sense.

 

Not sure why you have singled out evolution either. Plenty of science subjects involving vast time scales are essentially untestable through experiment. But for me, observational inference can be just as powerful. How do I know striding edge was formed through glaciation? It can't be proven through experiment but I'm fairly certain it was. Is geology not a science?

 

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that includes both experimental but mainly empirical studies. How on earth is the genetic tree not proof of it? There's no hypothesis falsification involved but that doesn't make it less real.

 

Even working as a medical evaluator, I have to accept that not all evidence comes from trials. At least half my work is involved with observational studies.

[Renton 17759]

Actually, come to think of it, where does economic modelling the Popperian paradigm?

[Guest CabayeAye]

 

 

According to that train of thought nothing has been absolutely proven which to me is clearly nonsense. Sometimes you need a bit of common sense.

 

Not sure why you have singled out evolution either. Plenty of science subjects involving vast time scales are essentially untestable through experiment. But for me, observational inference can be just as powerful. How do I know striding edge was formed through glaciation? It can't be proven through experiment but I'm fairly certain it was. Is geology not a science?

 

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that includes both experimental but mainly empirical studies. How on earth is the genetic tree not proof of it? There's no hypothesis falsification involved but that doesn't make it less real.

 

Even working as a medical evaluator, I have to accept that not all evidence comes from trials. At least half my work is involved with observational studies.

 

Nothing can be 100% proven. Philosophically, you could argue that we can't disprove that the universe is an illusion of the conscience, therefore anything that we think exists is only what we percieve as opposed to an absolute truth.

 

However, as you are speaking in common sense terms, i.e. what is applicable to our experience as humans, then observational evidence comes into play, sometimes overruling what we think is really true.

 

For a medical evaluator, I'd imagine a pragmatic approach is best as your job is all about getting results relevant to people.

As a theoretical physisist, I think a purely scientific approach is neccessary to avoid the limitations placed by axioms. For example, many theories makes no sense on a macro scale, meaning it is difficult to percieve many concepts. An example would be string theory. The fact that it requires high dimensional space would cause common sense to throw it out, as it 'obvious' (to humans) that we exist in only three spacial dimensions. But by disregarding this 'truth', we are allowed to carry on and produce superstring theory, probably the best description of our universe yet.

 

Hundreds of years ago, space flight would have been non-sensical, since surely the heavens would get in the way. By opening our minds, we open doors to the truth and move on as humanity.

[ChezGiven 0]

 

 

According to that train of thought nothing has been absolutely proven which to me is clearly nonsense. Sometimes you need a bit of common sense.

 

Not sure why you have singled out evolution either. Plenty of science subjects involving vast time scales are essentially untestable through experiment. But for me, observational inference can be just as powerful. How do I know striding edge was formed through glaciation? It can't be proven through experiment but I'm fairly certain it was. Is geology not a science?

 

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that includes both experimental but mainly empirical studies. How on earth is the genetic tree not proof of it? There's no hypothesis falsification involved but that doesn't make it less real.

 

Even working as a medical evaluator, I have to accept that not all evidence comes from trials. At least half my work is involved with observational studies.

Good example geology, the use of experimental testing is done through samples, in this case rock samples, which through a vast series of hypotheses lead to a conclusion of glacial formation. You can design 1000s of experiments using complex techniques to analyse 1000s of samples and in this way arrive at the conclusion. Those samples provide you with enough data to test the hypothesis, if you select samples at random you have your experimental designn. Glacial formation is a testable hypothesis, evolution is not. Popper said that Evolution is not a scientific fact, it's a metaphysical research programme

 

Economics is a poor science, far too political and is only just, as a mainstream topic, catching up with sub-disciplines like health economics that have adopted and adapted clinical trial methods (state transition matrices are based directly on trial data and are therefore of the highest scientific standard). Given the uncertainty introduced by the non clinical variables, practitioners still consider the models as decision making heuristics.

[wolfy 12]

How many people actually subscribe to the theory that this Earth is 6 BILLION years old?

 

Dinosaurs becoming extinct 65 million years ago?

[NJS 3978]

How many people actually subscribe to the theory that this Earth is 6 BILLION years old?

 

Nobody - its 4.55 billion

 

Dinosaurs becoming extinct 65 million years ago?

 

Why not?

[wolfy 12]

Nobody - its 4.55 billion

 

 

 

Why not?

I'm just asking.

[Guest CabayeAye]

I'm just asking.

 

Why wouldn't you subscribe to it? There is an awful lot of mutually supporting evidence suggesting that our planet is that old.

[wolfy 12]

Why wouldn't you subscribe to it? There is an awful lot of mutually supporting evidence suggesting that our planet is that old.

In all fairness, there isn't any evidence whatsoever that validates a 4 billion year old planet or a 65 million year old dinosaur extinction.

 

The whole theory of it all is based on rock and sediment and fossils, down to the oil and coal being animal and plant decay.

As I've said before, I honestly do not know how old this planet is, or what animals roamed this Earth at any particular point and I know there are geologists that believe they can fathom it all out, yet are only making up their own times based on assumptions.

 

The history of man seems to stretch back about 6000 years or something like that as we are led to believe by scientists and whoever, which those who believe in God can cite that this is the true age of the Earth, which is something I don't subscribe to as I don't believe in God.

 

I wouldn't be able to guess the age of the planet but I certainly don't believe dinosaur extinction, 65 million years ago, infact I do not believe in most of the dinosaur rubbish as in Tyrannosaurus Rex and other monstrously sized animals like that roaming about at that time.

[Guest CabayeAye]

Current age estimates are based on radiometric dating of terrestrial, lunar and meteorite material, not oil and coal. There are no assumptions, these figures come from scientific data that is collected without presumption.

 

The history of man is not discrete. Bearing in mind we evolved from apes, if you want to put a figure on it, modern man has been in existence for around 200,000 years.

 

Why wouldn't you believe in dinosaurs? We have fossils. Lots of fossils.

[toonotl 2411]

The main problem with evolution is the lack of depth in the archaeological record. It is estimated that something around 4 billions species have existed throughout the history of life on our planet. Only a fraction of those species are recorded in the fossil record. And of that fraction alot are recorded based upon data from a single specimen, and of those single specimens, a good many are comprised of single (or at least very few) bones.

 

This isn't really that surprising when you consider the conditions required for an organism to fossilize upon its death are obviously highly specific. That organism having then become fossilized is burdened by the responsibility of remaining close enough to the surface (when considering plate tectonics etc, but not above the surface unless conditions are literally ideal) for someone to find sometime in or after the 19th century.

 

Luckily with our deeper understanding of genetics in recent years the fossil record and its obvious limitations have become less of a problem. Genetics is the death knell for the creationism/id/idon'tcomefromnomonkey crowd. And the reason for this is that very specifically evolution and the mechanism of natural selection suggest that we should find certain characteristics in the genetic makeup of organisms and guess what? That's exactly what has been found.

 

Evolution is not the type of science that is observable under lab conditions. However, suggesting that that limitation somehow makes it less than in relation to other scientific theories is a bit disingenuous. Especially when you consider certain fields of physics and the possibility of any emperical data being produced to support their claims anytime in the near future. Not that I'm criticising quantum physics or anything. I just don't think lab results are as relevant for some sciences as they are for others. And the reasons for this should be fairly obvious. Hence, disingenuous.

 

The 'Evolution is only a theory' argument is a crock. Anyone that argues from that basis is automatically an idiot and I know this for one simple reason. The only thing that is required to disprove evolution is one piece of verifiable evidence that contradicts the theory. One fossil found in the wrong stratum or one piece of genetic code where it shouldn't be. Problem is that hasn't happened when if evolution was bullshit it should be happening all the time. Time and again evolution stands up as the best and simplest explanation for life on this planet.

 

(PS. CabayeAye you tit. The 'fine-tuning' or anthropic argument is an argument for the existence of god and creationism you fucking supertard not the other way around.)

[CabayeNay 0]

(PS. CabayeAye you tit. The 'fine-tuning' or anthropic argument is an argument for the existence of god and creationism you fucking supertard not the other way around.)

 

There's more to the Anthropic principle than creationism vs evolution, you thick cunt.

 

Break the argument down, and it states that the universe MUST be fine tuned for us to exist; the fact that we exist means that in our particular universe, no alternative framework is possible.

 

Of course, in other universes the composition of matter and energy may be different, but this is irrelevent to us, as we are unlikely to be able to interact with such states of existence.

 

Using this to argue the existence of a creator is bollocks anyway. It doesn't stand up to the logic of a child, much like any argument for a god.

[toonotl 2411]

I'm starting to think you're tardedness is framed in the same manner. If there is a fundamental particle that renders fuckwit I know one place we should all start the search.

[ChezGiven 0]

.

Evolution is not the type of science that is observable under lab conditions. However, suggesting that that limitation somehow makes it less than in relation to other scientific theories is a bit disingenuous. Especially when you consider certain fields of physics and the possibility of any emperical data being produced to support their claims anytime in the near future. Not that I'm criticising quantum physics or anything. I just don't think lab results are as relevant for some sciences as they are for others. And the reasons for this should be fairly obvious. Hence, disingenuous.

 

The 'Evolution is only a theory' argument is a crock. Anyone that argues from that basis is automatically an idiot.

Science is a form of epistemology which forms the basis of our 'knowledge'. The greatest scientific thinker who ever lived, who basically gave us the modern scientific framework would respectfully disagree. Evolution is a very strong theory, virtually proven but not entirely. To attempt to explain life by science and then not uphold yourself to the highest and most stringent standards of the discipline in that pursuit, is self-deception of the worse kind.

 

The whole point of randomisation to control for unobserved differences in samples and controlling for the observed differences with deliberate inclusion/exclusion, is the objective of falsification. Every scientific study ever run (not just those in lab conditions) has this objective. So observational data is adjusted to account for the selection bias, so RCTs follow strict rules. Evolution as a theory can not be falsified. That does not make it untrue, i believe 100% that it is true. However, the limitations of our scientific method should be honestly accepted.

[bjquick 0]

A bit like having a trillion trillion monkeys all playing the piano and yet one of them actually plays a full on song.

 

Sorry wolfy, but that has got to be one of the worst metaphors I've ever read.