Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution and Extinction

lannan13
Posts: 23,051
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 5:18:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So I was thinking yesterday and I've realized that what the EPA does goes against Evolution. If we followed evolution we would let these animals die. Like Pandas. They smother their young to death. Thus under evolution we should allow them to just die off, because them killing their young by rolling ontop of them and killing them makes them unfit to evolve and shows that they are to be extinct since they cannot survive anymore without outside help.

Thoughts?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 6:02:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 5:18:22 AM, lannan13 wrote:
So I was thinking yesterday and I've realized that what the EPA does goes against Evolution. If we followed evolution we would let these animals die. Like Pandas. They smother their young to death. Thus under evolution we should allow them to just die off, because them killing their young by rolling ontop of them and killing them makes them unfit to evolve and shows that they are to be extinct since they cannot survive anymore without outside help.

Thoughts?

Is this supposed to be some sort of dig at Evolution? It's a really poorly framed one if it is....
lannan13
Posts: 23,051
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 7:19:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 6:02:30 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:18:22 AM, lannan13 wrote:
So I was thinking yesterday and I've realized that what the EPA does goes against Evolution. If we followed evolution we would let these animals die. Like Pandas. They smother their young to death. Thus under evolution we should allow them to just die off, because them killing their young by rolling ontop of them and killing them makes them unfit to evolve and shows that they are to be extinct since they cannot survive anymore without outside help.

Thoughts?

Is this supposed to be some sort of dig at Evolution? It's a really poorly framed one if it is....

No, it's an attack on the EPA.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 7:29:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 7:19:02 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:02:30 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:18:22 AM, lannan13 wrote:
So I was thinking yesterday and I've realized that what the EPA does goes against Evolution. If we followed evolution we would let these animals die. Like Pandas. They smother their young to death. Thus under evolution we should allow them to just die off, because them killing their young by rolling ontop of them and killing them makes them unfit to evolve and shows that they are to be extinct since they cannot survive anymore without outside help.

Thoughts?

Is this supposed to be some sort of dig at Evolution? It's a really poorly framed one if it is....

No, it's an attack on the EPA.

a very convoluted one......I'm not sure you're making a whole lot of sense here. We don't follow evolution; it's not a philosophy, it's not a principle which guides action or policy. It's a scientific theory. We don't let the theory of gravity dictate our policy; why should we treat the theory of evolution any different from the theory of gravity?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 7:46:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 5:18:22 AM, lannan13 wrote:
So I was thinking yesterday and I've realized that what the EPA does goes against Evolution. If we followed evolution we would let these animals die. Like Pandas. They smother their young to death. Thus under evolution we should allow them to just die off, because them killing their young by rolling ontop of them and killing them makes them unfit to evolve and shows that they are to be extinct since they cannot survive anymore without outside help.

Thoughts?

I don't think EPA cares about evolution, but about the conservation of the environment which is vital to our own survival. About pandas killing their younling, I was unaware of that behaviour. Could you provide some references? I know that pandas, like many other mammals, abandon the excess offspring which they can not cope with. And precisely those left are the less likely to survive from the perspective of the mother, and therefore this process is an evolutionary one, not counter-evolutionary.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:16:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 5:18:22 AM, lannan13 wrote:
So I was thinking yesterday and I've realized that what the EPA does goes against Evolution. If we followed evolution we would let these animals die. Like Pandas. They smother their young to death. Thus under evolution we should allow them to just die off, because them killing their young by rolling ontop of them and killing them makes them unfit to evolve and shows that they are to be extinct since they cannot survive anymore without outside help.

Thoughts?

I don't know much about the EPA (I feel like you're assuming everyone here is from the US and automatically knows what you're talking about), but I think the basic idea of these types of organizations is to minimize or undo human interference with the natural development of those species and animals. Some of those animals are near extinction because of human activity and may not have been in that position otherwise. That being said, the idea that there exists a 'natural path in life' which humans interfere with, I think, is both poorly defined and nonsensical.

And just to clarify, I agree with those here who are saying that the basic premise of what you're saying doesn't seem to make any sense.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:28:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 7:29:05 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:19:02 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:02:30 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:18:22 AM, lannan13 wrote:
So I was thinking yesterday and I've realized that what the EPA does goes against Evolution. If we followed evolution we would let these animals die. Like Pandas. They smother their young to death. Thus under evolution we should allow them to just die off, because them killing their young by rolling ontop of them and killing them makes them unfit to evolve and shows that they are to be extinct since they cannot survive anymore without outside help.

Thoughts?

Is this supposed to be some sort of dig at Evolution? It's a really poorly framed one if it is....

No, it's an attack on the EPA.

a very convoluted one......I'm not sure you're making a whole lot of sense here. We don't follow evolution; it's not a philosophy, it's not a principle which guides action or policy. It's a scientific theory. We don't let the theory of gravity dictate our policy;

Oh, I let the theory of gravity dictate my policy all the time. I spend a great deal of effort trying to avoid falling.

You sure you want to argue that the theory of evolution has no practical value?
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:32:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 8:16:39 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:18:22 AM, lannan13 wrote:
So I was thinking yesterday and I've realized that what the EPA does goes against Evolution. If we followed evolution we would let these animals die. Like Pandas. They smother their young to death. Thus under evolution we should allow them to just die off, because them killing their young by rolling ontop of them and killing them makes them unfit to evolve and shows that they are to be extinct since they cannot survive anymore without outside help.

Thoughts?

I don't know much about the EPA (I feel like you're assuming everyone here is from the US and automatically knows what you're talking about), but I think the basic idea of these types of organizations is to minimize or undo human interference with the natural development of those species and animals. Some of those animals are near extinction because of human activity and may not have been in that position otherwise. That being said, the idea that there exists a 'natural path in life' which humans interfere with, I think, is both poorly defined and nonsensical.


Well, lol, you are sort of aware that you're contradicting yourself. If humans are completely natural, they can't really interfere with nature, can they? Only if humans have some super-natural element, something outside of nature, can they interfere in nature.

And just to clarify, I agree with those here who are saying that the basic premise of what you're saying doesn't seem to make any sense.

Well, I dunno, it's got you evos twisting yourselves inside out. Maybe you guys shouldn't be too quick to dismiss a thought just because it challenges your pet theory, eh?
This space for rent.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 11:52:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 8:32:46 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:16:39 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:18:22 AM, lannan13 wrote:
So I was thinking yesterday and I've realized that what the EPA does goes against Evolution. If we followed evolution we would let these animals die. Like Pandas. They smother their young to death. Thus under evolution we should allow them to just die off, because them killing their young by rolling ontop of them and killing them makes them unfit to evolve and shows that they are to be extinct since they cannot survive anymore without outside help.

Thoughts?

I don't know much about the EPA (I feel like you're assuming everyone here is from the US and automatically knows what you're talking about), but I think the basic idea of these types of organizations is to minimize or undo human interference with the natural development of those species and animals. Some of those animals are near extinction because of human activity and may not have been in that position otherwise. That being said, the idea that there exists a 'natural path in life' which humans interfere with, I think, is both poorly defined and nonsensical.


Well, lol, you are sort of aware that you're contradicting yourself. If humans are completely natural, they can't really interfere with nature, can they? Only if humans have some super-natural element, something outside of nature, can they interfere in nature.


No I agree with that. Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous statement. The last line in paragraph implies exactly what you just said. That was part of the point I was making, but I didn't think it needed to be said so explicitly.

And just to clarify, I agree with those here who are saying that the basic premise of what you're saying doesn't seem to make any sense.

Well, I dunno, it's got you evos twisting yourselves inside out. Maybe you guys shouldn't be too quick to dismiss a thought just because it challenges your pet theory, eh?

I'm not sure what you mean. How does it challenge what you refer to as a 'pet theory'? This has little to do with any scientific consideration of the evolution. The original post here was to do with policy decisions based on what is known about evolution. Therefore I'm not seeing the relevance of comment here.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:07:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 5:18:22 AM, lannan13 wrote:
So I was thinking yesterday and I've realized that what the EPA does goes against Evolution. If we followed evolution we would let these animals die. Like Pandas. They smother their young to death. Thus under evolution we should allow them to just die off, because them killing their young by rolling ontop of them and killing them makes them unfit to evolve and shows that they are to be extinct since they cannot survive anymore without outside help.

Thoughts?

Everyone else has done a great job at showing why your post makes no sense. I just wanted to ad that the EPA is an American department, and pandas live in CHINA. The EPA isn't suppose to go out and actively restore endangered species, they simply make sure that no further damage is done to that species by humans. They can't prevent natural selection, they just want it to happen with minimal human influence.

But what I really want to know do you know how evolution works and how humans have effect the environment for good and bad?
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:16:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think it's pretty obvious that we waste way too many resources trying to keep species from going extinct. There is no practical reason to keep pandas around except "they're cute" which is stupid. Whether their extinction is due to humans or not, doesn't really matter. They're useless to us, so why care if they all die?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:02:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:16:25 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that we waste way too many resources trying to keep species from going extinct. There is no practical reason to keep pandas around except "they're cute" which is stupid. Whether their extinction is due to humans or not, doesn't really matter. They're useless to us, so why care if they all die?

Well, once they're gone, they're gone forever. And as everybody knows at some level, there won't be any new species emerging to take their place.

No, what's really happening in the ecosystem is that it's running down. Species are going extinct with regularity, new ones are not emerging. So it makes all kinds of sense to try and preserve what we've got. It's madness to just say "Hey, let natural selection do its thing"

Which is to say: Natural selection, e.g evolution, is nonsense, practically speaking. The model that works is intelligent design. The model of Genesis, where man is a small creator tasked with caring for what the big Creator gave us - that's the useful model. And understanding that the ecosystem is a pool of information that is slowly lost over time - this is how we work with nature as a practical matter. We compensate for genetic illnesses (mutations) and we aid species that have trouble adapting, and so on.
This space for rent.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:15:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:02:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:16:25 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that we waste way too many resources trying to keep species from going extinct. There is no practical reason to keep pandas around except "they're cute" which is stupid. Whether their extinction is due to humans or not, doesn't really matter. They're useless to us, so why care if they all die?

Well, once they're gone, they're gone forever. And as everybody knows at some level, there won't be any new species emerging to take their place.

No, what's really happening in the ecosystem is that it's running down. Species are going extinct with regularity, new ones are not emerging. So it makes all kinds of sense to try and preserve what we've got. It's madness to just say "Hey, let natural selection do its thing"


I'm not sure it's 'running down'. What is preventing new species from filling in open niches? I would say the only thing preventing that is that humans will take over any available space long before a new species has time to adapt to it.

Which is to say: Natural selection, e.g evolution, is nonsense, practically speaking. The model that works is intelligent design. The model of Genesis, where man is a small creator tasked with caring for what the big Creator gave us - that's the useful model. And understanding that the ecosystem is a pool of information that is slowly lost over time - this is how we work with nature as a practical matter. We compensate for genetic illnesses (mutations) and we aid species that have trouble adapting, and so on.

I can see how that model can be useful in some ways, but science is more concerned with what model best corresponds to reality. That model also seems to suggest that we should maintain the status quo indefinitely. That's not something I particularly find appealing (and since we're ultimately talking about how our species should move forward, I think everyone is entitled to their opinions here).

I don't see how evolution is not practically useful. Breeding? Agriculture? Medicine? My opinion, and it is just an opinion, is that we should aim to progress to the point that we are able to responsibly design ourselves and our environments. It seems almost inevitable now that we will soon redefine our species by integrating with technology.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 2:31:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:15:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:02:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:16:25 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that we waste way too many resources trying to keep species from going extinct. There is no practical reason to keep pandas around except "they're cute" which is stupid. Whether their extinction is due to humans or not, doesn't really matter. They're useless to us, so why care if they all die?

Well, once they're gone, they're gone forever. And as everybody knows at some level, there won't be any new species emerging to take their place.

No, what's really happening in the ecosystem is that it's running down. Species are going extinct with regularity, new ones are not emerging. So it makes all kinds of sense to try and preserve what we've got. It's madness to just say "Hey, let natural selection do its thing"


I'm not sure it's 'running down'. What is preventing new species from filling in open niches?

The fact that there really is no such thing as Darwinian evolution, maybe? It only happens in textbooks and TV shows, not real life.


Which is to say: Natural selection, e.g evolution, is nonsense, practically speaking. The model that works is intelligent design. The model of Genesis, where man is a small creator tasked with caring for what the big Creator gave us - that's the useful model. And understanding that the ecosystem is a pool of information that is slowly lost over time - this is how we work with nature as a practical matter. We compensate for genetic illnesses (mutations) and we aid species that have trouble adapting, and so on.

I can see how that model can be useful in some ways, but science is more concerned with what model best corresponds to reality.

Yes, and I'm showing how ID corresponds to reality, evolution doesn't.

That model also seems to suggest that we should maintain the status quo indefinitely. That's not something I particularly find appealing (and since we're ultimately talking about how our species should move forward, I think everyone is entitled to their opinions here).

Ah, yes, the philosophic appeal of evolution - progress. But wouldn't you think design is a better model for progress as well? It's how we got to the moon, and got the internet. We've never evolved anything useful.


I don't see how evolution is not practically useful. Breeding? Agriculture? Medicine?

Those are genetics, and intelligent design. I distinguish genetics from evolution, though I know modern evolutionists want to blur that line.

My opinion, and it is just an opinion, is that we should aim to progress to the point that we are able to responsibly design ourselves and our environments.

Well, there you go - "design".
This space for rent.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 2:40:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:31:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:15:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:02:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:16:25 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that we waste way too many resources trying to keep species from going extinct. There is no practical reason to keep pandas around except "they're cute" which is stupid. Whether their extinction is due to humans or not, doesn't really matter. They're useless to us, so why care if they all die?

Well, once they're gone, they're gone forever. And as everybody knows at some level, there won't be any new species emerging to take their place.

No, what's really happening in the ecosystem is that it's running down. Species are going extinct with regularity, new ones are not emerging. So it makes all kinds of sense to try and preserve what we've got. It's madness to just say "Hey, let natural selection do its thing"


I'm not sure it's 'running down'. What is preventing new species from filling in open niches?

The fact that there really is no such thing as Darwinian evolution, maybe? It only happens in textbooks and TV shows, not real life.


I didn't realize that was an established fact, unless maybe you're using a definition of 'Darwinian evolution' which does not correspond to a current understanding of evolution. Can you point me to the studies which established this fact?


Which is to say: Natural selection, e.g evolution, is nonsense, practically speaking. The model that works is intelligent design. The model of Genesis, where man is a small creator tasked with caring for what the big Creator gave us - that's the useful model. And understanding that the ecosystem is a pool of information that is slowly lost over time - this is how we work with nature as a practical matter. We compensate for genetic illnesses (mutations) and we aid species that have trouble adapting, and so on.

I can see how that model can be useful in some ways, but science is more concerned with what model best corresponds to reality.

Yes, and I'm showing how ID corresponds to reality, evolution doesn't.

I didn't notice where. I only see the assertion, not where you show how. In fact, I'm quite certain that nothing you have said has anything to do with showing how ID corresponds to reality. You are only talking about why you think an ID model would be more practical or pragmatic then the current evolution model.


That model also seems to suggest that we should maintain the status quo indefinitely. That's not something I particularly find appealing (and since we're ultimately talking about how our species should move forward, I think everyone is entitled to their opinions here).

Ah, yes, the philosophic appeal of evolution - progress. But wouldn't you think design is a better model for progress as well? It's how we got to the moon, and got the internet. We've never evolved anything useful.


You misunderstand. Evolution has little to do with progress. I am advocating for human design, not natural selection.


I don't see how evolution is not practically useful. Breeding? Agriculture? Medicine?

Those are genetics, and intelligent design. I distinguish genetics from evolution, though I know modern evolutionists want to blur that line.

My opinion, and it is just an opinion, is that we should aim to progress to the point that we are able to responsibly design ourselves and our environments.

Well, there you go - "design".

Maybe you should have read the full post before commenting, then.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 3:11:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:40:23 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
...

I didn't realize that was an established fact, unless maybe you're using a definition of 'Darwinian evolution' which does not correspond to a current understanding of evolution. Can you point me to the studies which established this fact?

Definitions aren't going to help here. The point is, we cannot count on anything evolving, ever. The hypothesis (if you want to be all pedantic about terminology) is of no practical use. Don't dance, just accept the truth of that statement.


I didn't notice where. I only see the assertion, not where you show how. In fact, I'm quite certain that nothing you have said has anything to do with showing how ID corresponds to reality. You are only talking about why you think an ID model would be more practical or pragmatic then the current evolution model.


Again, fair enough if you want to be pedantic, but usually models correspond with reality because they're correct, and vice versa. The fun of science is getting to the moon or getting a computer running. What's the point of a science that only works in textbooks or TV shows?


Maybe you should have read the full post before commenting, then.

I did. See, I'm not trying to defend an absurd and useless hypothesis here, so we have very different emotions at this point. I'm hoping the cognitive dissonance of trying to defend evolution will make you think, that's all. So, I've probably made my point here, should just let 'er be...
This space for rent.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:15:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:02:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:16:25 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that we waste way too many resources trying to keep species from going extinct. There is no practical reason to keep pandas around except "they're cute" which is stupid. Whether their extinction is due to humans or not, doesn't really matter. They're useless to us, so why care if they all die?

Well, once they're gone, they're gone forever. And as everybody knows at some level, there won't be any new species emerging to take their place.

No, what's really happening in the ecosystem is that it's running down. Species are going extinct with regularity, new ones are not emerging.

New species are emerging:

http://phylointelligence.com...

To say that new species are not emerging is wrong.

So it makes all kinds of sense to try and preserve what we've got. It's madness to just say "Hey, let natural selection do its thing"

Which is to say: Natural selection, e.g evolution, is nonsense, practically speaking.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. There is speciation, mutations, and the birth of new kinds such as bird, fish, etc.

The model that works is intelligent design. The model of Genesis, where man is a small creator tasked with caring for what the big Creator gave us - that's the useful model. And understanding that the ecosystem is a pool of information that is slowly lost over time - this is how we work with nature as a practical matter. We compensate for genetic illnesses (mutations) and we aid species that have trouble adapting, and so on.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:26:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:02:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:16:25 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that we waste way too many resources trying to keep species from going extinct. There is no practical reason to keep pandas around except "they're cute" which is stupid. Whether their extinction is due to humans or not, doesn't really matter. They're useless to us, so why care if they all die?

Well, once they're gone, they're gone forever. And as everybody knows at some level, there won't be any new species emerging to take their place.

No, what's really happening in the ecosystem is that it's running down. Species are going extinct with regularity, new ones are not emerging. So it makes all kinds of sense to try and preserve what we've got. It's madness to just say "Hey, let natural selection do its thing"

Which is to say: Natural selection, e.g evolution, is nonsense, practically speaking.

The definition of evolution: biology : a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Based on this definition, we can see a variety of changes that occurred naturally. Speciation, mutation, emergence of a new kind such as birds are all examples that fit the definition.

Using Merriam-Webster's definition of evolution, as well as other definitions offered by credible sources such as http://evolution.berkeley.edu..., evolution is not nonsense.

What is your definition of evolution?

The model that works is intelligent design. The model of Genesis, where man is a small creator tasked with caring for what the big Creator gave us - that's the useful model. And understanding that the ecosystem is a pool of information that is slowly lost over time - this is how we work with nature as a practical matter. We compensate for genetic illnesses (mutations) and we aid species that have trouble adapting, and so on.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:29:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 3:11:26 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:40:23 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
...

I didn't realize that was an established fact, unless maybe you're using a definition of 'Darwinian evolution' which does not correspond to a current understanding of evolution. Can you point me to the studies which established this fact?

Definitions aren't going to help here. The point is, we cannot count on anything evolving, ever. The hypothesis (if you want to be all pedantic about terminology) is of no practical use. Don't dance, just accept the truth of that statement.

Are you seriously suggesting that I simply accept what you say as fact at face value? I expect some degree of research to back up any claim. As to your point about evolution having no practical value, you're clearly at odds with the relevant scientific community on this. If you have some new information that suggests this to be the case, I'm open to hearing it. However, showing that all of the practical applications that are currently attributed to evolution are really misattributions would be a rather large task. I'm not even sure what you think evolution means.


I didn't notice where. I only see the assertion, not where you show how. In fact, I'm quite certain that nothing you have said has anything to do with showing how ID corresponds to reality. You are only talking about why you think an ID model would be more practical or pragmatic then the current evolution model.


Again, fair enough if you want to be pedantic, but usually models correspond with reality because they're correct, and vice versa. The fun of science is getting to the moon or getting a computer running. What's the point of a science that only works in textbooks or TV shows?

It's not pedantic when the distance between what you said and what you meant was so large. Anyway, I actually agree with you on this point, but there is also a fair point to made about the applications of science generally arising from theory which had no foreseeable application at the time of its discovery.


Maybe you should have read the full post before commenting, then.

I did. See, I'm not trying to defend an absurd and useless hypothesis here, so we have very different emotions at this point. I'm hoping the cognitive dissonance of trying to defend evolution will make you think, that's all. So, I've probably made my point here, should just let 'er be...

I'm not really here to defend evolution. I'm not even an evolutionary biologist. That being said, you've provided nothing that suggests to me that I should retract my conditional acceptance of the current evolution model.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:51:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:31:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:15:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:02:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:16:25 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that we waste way too many resources trying to keep species from going extinct. There is no practical reason to keep pandas around except "they're cute" which is stupid. Whether their extinction is due to humans or not, doesn't really matter. They're useless to us, so why care if they all die?

Well, once they're gone, they're gone forever. And as everybody knows at some level, there won't be any new species emerging to take their place.

No, what's really happening in the ecosystem is that it's running down. Species are going extinct with regularity, new ones are not emerging. So it makes all kinds of sense to try and preserve what we've got. It's madness to just say "Hey, let natural selection do its thing"


I'm not sure it's 'running down'. What is preventing new species from filling in open niches?

The fact that there really is no such thing as Darwinian evolution, maybe? It only happens in textbooks and TV shows, not real life.

I am very interested in seeing what definition of evolution you are using. Darwinian evolution is provided in the following link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

"(Biology) the theory of the origin of animal and plant species by evolution through a process of natural selection." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Evolution is the following: The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)

Speciation is a perfect example of living organisms diversifying. There are also examples of the emergence of new kinds, like birds.(http://www.academia.edu...)

It can be concluded that evolution does happen in real life.



Which is to say: Natural selection, e.g evolution, is nonsense, practically speaking. The model that works is intelligent design. The model of Genesis, where man is a small creator tasked with caring for what the big Creator gave us - that's the useful model. And understanding that the ecosystem is a pool of information that is slowly lost over time - this is how we work with nature as a practical matter. We compensate for genetic illnesses (mutations) and we aid species that have trouble adapting, and so on.

I can see how that model can be useful in some ways, but science is more concerned with what model best corresponds to reality.

Yes, and I'm showing how ID corresponds to reality, evolution doesn't.

That model also seems to suggest that we should maintain the status quo indefinitely. That's not something I particularly find appealing (and since we're ultimately talking about how our species should move forward, I think everyone is entitled to their opinions here).

Ah, yes, the philosophic appeal of evolution - progress. But wouldn't you think design is a better model for progress as well? It's how we got to the moon, and got the internet. We've never evolved anything useful.


I don't see how evolution is not practically useful. Breeding? Agriculture? Medicine?

Those are genetics, and intelligent design. I distinguish genetics from evolution, though I know modern evolutionists want to blur that line.

My opinion, and it is just an opinion, is that we should aim to progress to the point that we are able to responsibly design ourselves and our environments.

Well, there you go - "design".
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 5:10:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 5:18:22 AM, lannan13 wrote:
So I was thinking yesterday and I've realized that what the EPA does goes against Evolution. If we followed evolution we would let these animals die. Like Pandas. They smother their young to death. Thus under evolution we should allow them to just die off, because them killing their young by rolling ontop of them and killing them makes them unfit to evolve and shows that they are to be extinct since they cannot survive anymore without outside help.

Thoughts?

Just because evolution works a certain way doesn't mean we should try to mimic it... evolution takes millions of years. You seem to think evolution is a doctrine. It is not. Evolution is just an observed scientific process.

If certain species of animal are weaker than us and some die off as a result, and some adapt, well, that's evolution at work.
You can call me Mark if you like.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 5:14:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:51:56 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:31:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:15:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:02:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:16:25 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that we waste way too many resources trying to keep species from going extinct. There is no practical reason to keep pandas around except "they're cute" which is stupid. Whether their extinction is due to humans or not, doesn't really matter. They're useless to us, so why care if they all die?

Well, once they're gone, they're gone forever. And as everybody knows at some level, there won't be any new species emerging to take their place.

No, what's really happening in the ecosystem is that it's running down. Species are going extinct with regularity, new ones are not emerging. So it makes all kinds of sense to try and preserve what we've got. It's madness to just say "Hey, let natural selection do its thing"


I'm not sure it's 'running down'. What is preventing new species from filling in open niches?

The fact that there really is no such thing as Darwinian evolution, maybe? It only happens in textbooks and TV shows, not real life.


I am very interested in seeing what definition of evolution you are using. Darwinian evolution is provided in the following link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


Have you read the exchange here, have you gotten the context? Someone asked (tongue-in-cheek, I think) why we should save the Pandas, and I said that once they are gone, they're gone. There will be no new species evolve to replace the panda. There is no observable evolution, no new species emerging.

So definitions aren't going to bail you out here. Reminds me of the classic dead parrot routine by Monte Python. "It's not dead, it's sleeping". "I define Darwin as sleeping, not dead, lol."
This space for rent.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 5:47:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 5:14:19 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:51:56 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:31:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:15:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:02:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:16:25 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that we waste way too many resources trying to keep species from going extinct. There is no practical reason to keep pandas around except "they're cute" which is stupid. Whether their extinction is due to humans or not, doesn't really matter. They're useless to us, so why care if they all die?

Well, once they're gone, they're gone forever. And as everybody knows at some level, there won't be any new species emerging to take their place.

No, what's really happening in the ecosystem is that it's running down. Species are going extinct with regularity, new ones are not emerging. So it makes all kinds of sense to try and preserve what we've got. It's madness to just say "Hey, let natural selection do its thing"


I'm not sure it's 'running down'. What is preventing new species from filling in open niches?

The fact that there really is no such thing as Darwinian evolution, maybe? It only happens in textbooks and TV shows, not real life.


I am very interested in seeing what definition of evolution you are using. Darwinian evolution is provided in the following link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


Have you read the exchange here, have you gotten the context?

I have mainly read your posts.

Someone asked (tongue-in-cheek, I think) why we should save the Pandas, and I said that once they are gone, they're gone. There will be no new species evolve to replace the panda. There is no observable evolution, no new species emerging.

Micro evolution proves that statement false.

http://www.nature.com...


So definitions aren't going to bail you out here. Reminds me of the classic dead parrot routine by Monte Python. "It's not dead, it's sleeping". "I define Darwin as sleeping, not dead, lol."
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 6:33:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 5:14:19 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:51:56 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:31:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:15:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:02:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:16:25 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that we waste way too many resources trying to keep species from going extinct. There is no practical reason to keep pandas around except "they're cute" which is stupid. Whether their extinction is due to humans or not, doesn't really matter. They're useless to us, so why care if they all die?

Well, once they're gone, they're gone forever. And as everybody knows at some level, there won't be any new species emerging to take their place.

No, what's really happening in the ecosystem is that it's running down. Species are going extinct with regularity, new ones are not emerging. So it makes all kinds of sense to try and preserve what we've got. It's madness to just say "Hey, let natural selection do its thing"


I'm not sure it's 'running down'. What is preventing new species from filling in open niches?

The fact that there really is no such thing as Darwinian evolution, maybe? It only happens in textbooks and TV shows, not real life.


I am very interested in seeing what definition of evolution you are using. Darwinian evolution is provided in the following link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


Have you read the exchange here, have you gotten the context? Someone asked (tongue-in-cheek, I think) why we should save the Pandas, and I said that once they are gone, they're gone. There will be no new species evolve to replace the panda. There is no observable evolution, no new species emerging.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...


So definitions aren't going to bail you out here. Reminds me of the classic dead parrot routine by Monte Python. "It's not dead, it's sleeping". "I define Darwin as sleeping, not dead, lol."
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:25:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 5:14:19 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:51:56 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:31:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:15:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:02:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:16:25 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that we waste way too many resources trying to keep species from going extinct. There is no practical reason to keep pandas around except "they're cute" which is stupid. Whether their extinction is due to humans or not, doesn't really matter. They're useless to us, so why care if they all die?

Well, once they're gone, they're gone forever. And as everybody knows at some level, there won't be any new species emerging to take their place.

No, what's really happening in the ecosystem is that it's running down. Species are going extinct with regularity, new ones are not emerging. So it makes all kinds of sense to try and preserve what we've got. It's madness to just say "Hey, let natural selection do its thing"


I'm not sure it's 'running down'. What is preventing new species from filling in open niches?

The fact that there really is no such thing as Darwinian evolution, maybe? It only happens in textbooks and TV shows, not real life.


I am very interested in seeing what definition of evolution you are using. Darwinian evolution is provided in the following link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


Have you read the exchange here, have you gotten the context? Someone asked (tongue-in-cheek, I think) why we should save the Pandas, and I said that once they are gone, they're gone. There will be no new species evolve to replace the panda. There is no observable evolution, no new species emerging.

So definitions aren't going to bail you out here. Reminds me of the classic dead parrot routine by Monte Python. "It's not dead, it's sleeping". "I define Darwin as sleeping, not dead, lol."

You do not seem to have read SamStevens post. I also don't suppose you will be responding to my last post?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 7:35:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 5:10:01 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:18:22 AM, lannan13 wrote:
So I was thinking yesterday and I've realized that what the EPA does goes against Evolution. If we followed evolution we would let these animals die. Like Pandas. They smother their young to death. Thus under evolution we should allow them to just die off, because them killing their young by rolling ontop of them and killing them makes them unfit to evolve and shows that they are to be extinct since they cannot survive anymore without outside help.

Thoughts?

Just because evolution works a certain way doesn't mean we should try to mimic it... evolution takes millions of years. You seem to think evolution is a doctrine. It is not. Evolution is just an observed scientific process.


But it is NOT an observed scientific process, that's the point being highlighted here. We DO have to worry about extinction, and we have to worry about it because, in the real world, new species are NOT emerging.

You're actually talking out of both sides of your mouth here, I think: "Evolution takes millions of years" - in other words, that's why we can't actually see any evolution. Then you say "Evolution is just an observed ... process". So which is it? Are new species being originated, or not? Is the ecosystem growing in diversity, or losing species? All you evo apologists need to drop the political campaign mode of thinking and just be real about it.

I should draw up nesl's list of "uncomfortable truths of evolution". Here's a couple to get started:

1) If man evolved, he could never know it (evolved species would be tuned for survival, not knowledge. Evolution can explain lust, but not science)
2) Evolution, even if true, is a completely useless bit of science. Interesting, but useless.

The latter one is what I've been highlighting in this thread. These ideas may be outside of the mainstream wagon ruts, I hope y'all can honestly think about them without your heads exploding.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 7:42:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 6:33:29 PM, SamStevens wrote:
...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...


Yes, I'm well aware of the "speciation" gambit.

So let me reiterate the question here for you, this formulation of it: Is the ecosystem increasing in diversity, or decreasing?
This space for rent.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 7:54:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 7:42:45 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:33:29 PM, SamStevens wrote:
...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...


Yes, I'm well aware of the "speciation" gambit.

So let me reiterate the question here for you, this formulation of it: Is the ecosystem increasing in diversity, or decreasing?

It's time we debated:

"Humans Share A Common Ancestor With Other Animals"

I will take the full BoP. Let's see if you do better in an anti-evolution debate than a Pro-ID debate. I warn if your performance is going to be as unspectacular in this debate as you were in our last then it's not going to be worth my time.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 8:29:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 7:54:59 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:42:45 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:33:29 PM, SamStevens wrote:
...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...


Yes, I'm well aware of the "speciation" gambit.

So let me reiterate the question here for you, this formulation of it: Is the ecosystem increasing in diversity, or decreasing?

It's time we debated:

"Humans Share A Common Ancestor With Other Animals"

I will take the full BoP. Let's see if you do better in an anti-evolution debate than a Pro-ID debate. I warn if your performance is going to be as unspectacular in this debate as you were in our last then it's not going to be worth my time.

Right, you initiate a debate challenge while telling me it's not going to be worth your time. Just a perfect sample of the self contradictory logic of this whole subject.

I think Richard Dawkins put it best (and this is a bit of a paraphrase) "Evolution is the most counter intuitive science theory of all time, which makes it one of the greatest achievements of the human mind" Which can be translated as "Most ridiculous thing you've ever heard said with a straight face".
This space for rent.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 8:38:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 8:29:18 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:54:59 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:42:45 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:33:29 PM, SamStevens wrote:
...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...


Yes, I'm well aware of the "speciation" gambit.

So let me reiterate the question here for you, this formulation of it: Is the ecosystem increasing in diversity, or decreasing?

It's time we debated:

"Humans Share A Common Ancestor With Other Animals"

I will take the full BoP. Let's see if you do better in an anti-evolution debate than a Pro-ID debate. I warn if your performance is going to be as unspectacular in this debate as you were in our last then it's not going to be worth my time.

Right, you initiate a debate challenge while telling me it's not going to be worth your time. Just a perfect sample of the self contradictory logic of this whole subject.

I think Richard Dawkins put it best (and this is a bit of a paraphrase) "Evolution is the most counter intuitive science theory of all time, which makes it one of the greatest achievements of the human mind" Which can be translated as "Most ridiculous thing you've ever heard said with a straight face".

A better paraphrase would be:

"Okay, let's debate, but you better do good in this debate because you disappointed me last time"

Loosely translated.