Evolution - True Or False

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by darksidZz, Feb 10, 2007.



Poll closed Feb 25, 2007.
  1. False

  2. True

  3. Other; Comment

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    There is a concept of “degree of being wrong”. In this area of thinking, you can have two wrong statements, but one is “more wrong than the other”.

    For instance, if I am in London, and I say two things: “I am standing in Brussles” and “I am standing on Saturn”, both can easily be classified as wrong. However, when measured, the first statement is *drastically* less wrong than the second.

    In this example, instead of measuring wrongness, we are attempting to measure unknown-ness. By virtue of the structure of the claim, we can impart some level of likelihood of correctness – even without considering the specific claim itself.

    “I have seen a purple polar bear” : the speaking individual claims to have seen 1 extraordinary version of a known real animal.

    “every Polar bear in Juno Alaska is purple” : the speaking individual claims that every instance of a known real animal within the borders of an entire city is extraordinary.

    With out even looking at the original claim, it should be fairly easy to determine that the first statement has a MUCH better chance of being correct, simply because it requires less to be true. ONE instance of ONE oddity seen by ONE person is enough.

    The second statement most likely requires much more for it to be true – be it many instances of an extraordinary event spread over a fairly large area, or a trickery in the wording that changes the suggested meaning of the original statement.

    So without *KNOWING* anything more than the structure of the unknown claims, one *should* be placed closer to correct than the other. It should never be claimed as true without further evidence, but it should also not be considered equal to the other until such time as both are determined true.

    To end this logical exersize, here is the purple polar bear that I have seen. It got a fungal infection in the hollow space of its transparent hairs, which turned it green. The medication to kill the fungus turned it purple for a while.

    This idea of "improbable but guaranteed" is handled nicely in video #2.

    Picking out 8 coin flips in a row is very improbable. However, if you have 100 people, and 50 pick heads, the other 50 tails, the half will be right. Divide up those people for round two into 25 heads and 25 tails; again, half will be right....so on and so forth. eventually, you'll end up with one person who has picked the "random" event multiple times in a row correctly, defying logical chance.

    But not because they are psychic. Instead, because you have enlarged the sample size to the point where the unlikely becomes a given.

    As I said, I don't always agree with Dawkins - to me, the non-existence of God is just as improvable as the existence. As such, the theory he supports for abiogenesis, to me, didn't *have* to happen, but it's a hell of a lot more likely than the existence of an omnipotent self-aware all-pervasive, but yet invisible creator being. Especially once you start dealing with billions upon billions upon billions of molecules in billions upon billions of tiny pools of water on billions upon billions of hills of semi-dry land on billions of planets around billions of stars in billions of galaxies.
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Saquist Banned Banned

    Your post makes sense.
    I however I can not understand how the degree of wrong has any bearing on wrong. I do not comprend the measure of wrong or right or any known unit of measurement that would follow this concept.

    More wrong...sounds like subjective interpretation.

    Picking out 8 coin flips in a row is very improbable. However, if you have 100 people, and 50 pick heads, the other 50 tails, the half will be right. Divide up those people for round two into 25 heads and 25 tails....so on and so forth. eventually, you'll end up with one person who has picked the "random" event multiple times in a row correctly, defying logical chance

    I can not agree. Not that this isn't true.
    Hoever I contest "defying" it's more like cheating engineering sucess. Which means everything is possible...this defies the purpose of calculating odds in the first place. To understand the actions and reactions in the realm of reality. It's also quite impossible to enact...in other words...hypothecial.

    I chose Dawkins because he was there at the begining and understanding the orignins of a theory is paramount to determining it's viability.

    I also contend with the statement that God is improvalbe. The very Idea of God suggest that it is not improvable. If God were to speak to mankind, it would reveal him and prove his existence. Such an action would be completely out of our hands. The bible says this occured on several occasions. We discount history or written accounts because we haven't seen them. Yet there is proof of occurance. Evolution however does not have any proof of occurence...only theory.

    So probability manuipulation aside the test here is for evolution. It has never been observed (in whole) we see bits an pieces of something and theorize as to what the whole looks like. If we had seen the whole then we'd know if evolution was true, but we have not.

    As it stands God remains a possibility under scientific reasoning and unremoved from the discussion.

    Yet we can remove one if it proves not to fit the information we have available.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    The "proof of occurance" for god lies in the words of men--known to lie often, especially in ignorance.

    The "proof of occurance" for evolution lies in natural clues, which cannot lie.

    I just don't follow your logic.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saquist Banned Banned

    Yes you do you just haven't followed it through.

    If you were following logic to conclusion, it would have occured to you that,

    A. I must be basing written on other factors other than just "he said and she said"

    B. You'd realise that the words of men can equally be true or false.

    A preconcieved position allowed you to error on the side you were most familar with...therein appearing illogical to you.
  8. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    And this is why I asked; I had a feeling that this was the case. Without the ability to discern the degree of wrong, and an understanding of how that can be usefull, then you will be vulnerable to the other end - the inability to determine the chances of correctness, before having conclusive proof, will often trap you into unfounded conclusions that are difficult to get out of, once counter-evidence becomes apparent.

    And thus not provable. If god desides to pop in for a bit and provide us with proof, then fine. But given all that we have now, the existance in not provable - the phrase suggests provable by us (humans). If the Abrahamic God exists, then certainly he could prove himself. But I'm not in a position to discuss his abilities to prove, I can only discuss OUR ability to prove.
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2007
  9. Saquist Banned Banned

    You preception are correct but your conclusion is not.

    Adopt and discard is a ready option and actively used in my system. It must be. There are only absolutes it would be hypocritcal to conclude that ones self is not covered by wrong and right absolutes.

    any thing conclusive has a place as absolute...anything else is unknown...which is also an absolute.
  10. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    There are many items that we will all encounter in life which are unknown, but which should not be grouped together. If you refuse to discard your previously adopted idea of every unkown being absolutly unknown, then you will seriously hamstring yourself in life.

    When presented with two questions, and no time to go learn the absolute truth of the two, you will not be able to make an educated guess in the meantime. You will be frozen in place, and very possibly, get figuratively squashed.

    It seems to me that this arguement is not one of evolution and creationism at all, but one of the possible usefullness of things that have a level of unknown.

    Those who understand how to effectively use the known peices of an unknown can actually create a useful framework to progress foreward. Those who can't, or choose not to, stay where they are.

    It seems to me that one method is more useful than the other, so I support it. And as such, evolution seems quite handy, logical, and likely, given what parts of the unknown that I have available. Why logic supports this idea requires a fuller study of how logic works that can be readily covered within this topic.
  11. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Then do you not also "error on the side you [are] most familiar with"?

    The words of men cannot ever be as true as the unbiased earth itself.

    You fail to realize that language is inherently deceitful in that it does not have the capacity to convey full truth, and in fact its method of conveyance is based upon individual association to the words, not absolute definition.

    Although observation of natural events is also interpretable by human interaction, it is many times more objective than language.
  12. Saquist Banned Banned

    It's possible but if it is so you would not be able to discrn such from my post.

    You fail to realize that language is inherently deceitful

    I have failed to choose to be biased toward eye witness testimony while succueed to place such testimony not on a pedestal but in the witness stand for all consideration.

    Have you done the same...
    I percieve that that you have not.
  13. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    You have assumed Gensis to be true before you have fairly tested its validity against what you can verify yourself today (in its results). I would call that a pedestal.

    Science puts nothing on a pedestal, but places its ideas ontop of the evidence that supports them. Sure, if an idea has TONS and TONS evidence, the pile will be large, and might look like pedestal from a distance.
  14. Saquist Banned Banned

    Then you'd be wrong.
    Science puts many things on a pedestal just as it shovels knowledge away into a refuse. This ideology is flawed and answers for the passing of legit theories because of contradiction with other theories...
  15. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    People put things onto pedestals. Scientists are people, and some of them do this. Science itself does not. When it occurs, people afront the very design of the scientific method. I fight hard against it when I see it in the scientific community.

    It has happened, it will happen. But just as the Roman Catholic Church is not Jesus anymore than the Luthren Church is Jesus, the scientists are not science itself. The failings of an instance does not undermine the meaning of the idea, wouldn't you agree?
  16. Saquist Banned Banned

    of course...draw a different meaning from what i've posted.
  17. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    I don't understand. Are you saying that I'm mis-reading what you posted? Or are you telling me to do so?

    In what way did I misread?
  18. Saquist Banned Banned

    I may have said "science" but scientist was in context from the like term from "person" meaning scientist.

    You were being litteral to what I wrote....but not litteral to what I meant...in other words misunderstanding...
  19. Saquist Banned Banned

    Okay...so in Dawkins book he makes a comment in the preface. (no wonder really you don't agree with him)

    "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction."

    He's not unique. Other book on evo skim over the staggering problem of explaining the ermergence of life from nonliving matter.

    Proffessor William Thorpe of Zoology departmen of Cambridge Universtiy told fellow scientists"

    "All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was."

    what a statement...
  20. darksidZz Valued Senior Member

    All your base are belong to us...
  21. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Understood. Funny how easily that happens when one person writes and another reads. Unfortunate it isn't more of an exact science, this written communication thing.

    Those people are dealing with probabilities and likelyhoods of unknowns. If you do not see the value in that, or see the existance of those things, it *won't* make any sense to you.


    As with the polar bear, we can look at something and determine within a range of known accuracy, some aspects about what we *don't* know. Using that information, we can often determine the most likely root(s) of the unknown.

    As I stated here,
    "if you saw a person up ontop of a roof, with a pile of chairs jumbled up at the foot of the wall, did God then place the person ontop of the building?"

    We can't know what happened, but even without any further information, we can asertain one of the more likely causes of the current situation.
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2007
  22. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    You do not "choose" to be biased. You are not aware of your bias, people rarely are. Your bias is to take a side.
  23. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Saquist, the theory of evolution does not seek to explain how life came from non-life. It seeks to explain how life has changed after it had already come to be.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page