Bombastic Pontificating- Rogue evolution thread

[zenoandthetortoise]

Ok, Cdmay, here's a new thread to continue to discuss if you're still interested. I'm not going to have time to address all the very relevant points you made tonight, but one correction simply cannot wait and that is that is that bit about not messing with mathematicians. Mathematicians are in fact one of the few demographics that make biologists seem cool. Kind of a nerd hierarchy. The other stuff I'll get to tomorrow.

 

[cdmay]

Ok, Cdmay, here's a new thread to continue to discuss if you're still interested. I'm not going to have time to address all the very relevant points you made tonight, but one correction simply cannot wait and that is that is that bit about not messing with mathematicians. Mathematicians are in fact one of the few demographics that make biologists seem cool. Kind of a nerd hierarchy. The other stuff I'll get to tomorrow.

Ha ha! Oh yes, we have found something to agree on!
Look there are a million bits of info we could argue about for a long time but I'm not into arguing. My major issue about the evolution theory is that it cannot answer the origin of life in the first place. Evolutionists in general-- and academic evolutionists in particular-- gloss over this insurmountable question with aforementioned 'bombastic pontificating'. Yet they never answer the question. My father in law who was the head of the science department at our local state college and who was a rabid evolution theory proponent would only raise his voice and wave his arms around when I asked him this very question. But his answer was always something to the effect of, "Given enough time and the right conditions anything can happen, you just don't understand time!" That is blind faith in my view.
In addition, although he possessed two master's degrees he couldn't (nor can other evolutionists) explain why it is that humans alone express a belief in a creator and generally do things very contrary to concepts that support the idea of their being no intelligent and caring creator. For example, why do humans universally have laws against theft, or adultery, or murder? Why do humans alone have an appreciation for art, music, history and even the study of other forms of life? Why is it that humans care for the sick, those born severely handicapped or the elderly? The laws of nature that are in harmony with the idea of survival of the fittest and evolution are at complete odds with these activities. How, or more importantly, why would such things evolve?
The point I was trying to make last night under Madkins' thread is that I have learned enough about the popular concept of evolution to know that life could not have originated by blind chance and that we did not arrive here by nothing more than random mutations over a long period of time.
But, I absolutely do see from the fossil record and from what I know about the variation of animal and plant life on the earth that species have changed and are changing over time. Is this evolution? Or as I said before, adaptation and the expression of genetic potential. Nevertheless, turtles are turtles even though there is a wild variation in what we call a turtle.

 

[N2TORTS]

“For example, why do humans universally have laws against theft, or adultery, or murder?
Well that’s an easy one – To cause judgment (like religion) and provide jobs as a lawyer/ Judge :Hence the All mighty'
Why do humans alone have an appreciation for art, music, history and even the study of other forms of life?
Neuroscience of Beauty
Art has been part of the human experience since Paleolithic man painted on the walls of caves in Lascaux, France, and Altamira, Spain, more than 30,000 years ago. Art preceded cities, agriculture and writing.
The most important part of the brain for aesthetic appraisal is the anterior insula, a part of the brain that sits within one of the deep folds of the cerebral cortex and this is a surprise. The anterior insula is typically associated with emotions of negative quality, such as disgust and pain, making it an unusual candidate for being the brain’s “aesthetic center.” Why would a part of the brain known to be important for the processing of pain and disgust turn out to the most important area for the appreciation of art?
Our interpretation of the result comes from cognitive theories of emotion that argue that aesthetic processing is, at its core, the appraisal of the value of an object -- in other words, an assessment of whether an object is “good for me” or “bad for me.” The nature of this appraisal depends very strongly on what my current physiological state is. The sight of chocolate cake will lead to positive aesthetic emotions if I’m famished but to feelings of disgust if I’m sick to my stomach. Objects that satisfy current physiological needs will lead to positive aesthetic emotions (e.g., pleasure). Those that oppose these needs will lead to negative emotions (e.g., repulsion).How does the anterior insula fit into this story? In thinking about the contrast between internal and external environments, the anterior insula seems to be much more associated with the former than the latter. It is part of the brain’s “interoceptive” system, evaluating the state of the organs of our body. Other parts of the brain, then, respond directly to objects in the external environment: the sensory pathways of the brain. (One part of the cortex that seems particularly important for processing information across many sensory modalities is the orbitofrontal cortex.)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-beauty/
Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist

I can't think of any fancy words to add sorry ..........

 

[cdmay]

“For example, why do humans universally have laws against theft, or adultery, or murder?
Well that’s an easy one – To cause judgment (like religion) and provide jobs as a lawyer/ Judge :Hence the All mighty'
Why do humans alone have an appreciation for art, music, history and even the study of other forms of life?
Neuroscience of Beauty
Art has been part of the human experience since Paleolithic man painted on the walls of caves in Lascaux, France, and Altamira, Spain, more than 30,000 years ago. Art preceded cities, agriculture and writing.
The most important part of the brain for aesthetic appraisal is the anterior insula, a part of the brain that sits within one of the deep folds of the cerebral cortex and this is a surprise. The anterior insula is typically associated with emotions of negative quality, such as disgust and pain, making it an unusual candidate for being the brain’s “aesthetic center.” Why would a part of the brain known to be important for the processing of pain and disgust turn out to the most important area for the appreciation of art?
Our interpretation of the result comes from cognitive theories of emotion that argue that aesthetic processing is, at its core, the appraisal of the value of an object -- in other words, an assessment of whether an object is “good for me” or “bad for me.” The nature of this appraisal depends very strongly on what my current physiological state is. The sight of chocolate cake will lead to positive aesthetic emotions if I’m famished but to feelings of disgust if I’m sick to my stomach. Objects that satisfy current physiological needs will lead to positive aesthetic emotions (e.g., pleasure). Those that oppose these needs will lead to negative emotions (e.g., repulsion).How does the anterior insula fit into this story? In thinking about the contrast between internal and external environments, the anterior insula seems to be much more associated with the former than the latter. It is part of the brain’s “interoceptive” system, evaluating the state of the organs of our body. Other parts of the brain, then, respond directly to objects in the external environment: the sensory pathways of the brain. (One part of the cortex that seems particularly important for processing information across many sensory modalities is the orbitofrontal cortex.)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-beauty/
Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist

I can't think of any fancy words to add sorry ..........

No fancy words required. Your replies are well written and understandable. Your first reply though funny is not a legitimate answer as you of course know. So that question remains unanswered.
The second line of reasoning about how the brain is stimulated by art raises more questions than it answers. For example, if art and music had never existed before. Was never known in the universe and there was no preexisting concept of these things, how could a brain suddenly develop a desire for them? Or grow a section of itself devoted to such things? How or why would a need for such things suddenly pop into existence? The Biblical answer, though not very cool from a scientific standpoint, is that these things were created in our brains by a loving creator who wanted us to enjoy them...and to set us apart from the animals. Yes, I know. For 'serious' scientists and atheists, such a concept is like pouring water on the Wicked Witch of the West.
As for the aversion to chocolate cake at one time being seductive and at another time being sickening, you are not talking about art and music or those emotions. It is a completely different set of factors that have to do with the contrast between hunger and illness. In one case your body is telling you to eat sweets and at another time, for whatever reason, it is telling you to avoid them because your stomach can't handle it then.
But then again there are some forms of art that make me want to puke, so maybe you're onto something...Robert Mapplethorpe anyone?
He is another concept I will throw out there. It is my opinion but it is shared by many. It is this--a certain percentage of people cling to the theory of evolution no matter how many holes might get shot into it, no matter how many impossibilities are involved if only because the alternative (a Creator) is too much for them to deal with. The idea of a creator (for example as explained in the Bible) means that we are responsible for our actions. There is accountability. People today hate this idea. It's much easier to say that we are here solely because of totally random factors--pure chance and luck and thus anything we do is acceptable. Nothing matters.
It is easier to live one's life pointing only to science than it is to acknowledge something greater.

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

Hi Cdmay,

For the record, I can generate that response in my father-in law (yelling and arm waving) on a seemingly infinite number of subjects, not limited to evolution. Not saying that's your situation, but it does bring the correlation into question.
Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I do like to argue, but I am working on it. All that arm waving is dangerous when typing on a phone. Anyway, back to the thread...

"Evolutionists in general-- and academic evolutionists in particular-- gloss over this insurmountable question with aforementioned 'bombastic pontificating'. Yet they never answer the question."

I have never met a scientist that felt this way, I know I don't. My work has nothing to do with abiotic protein synthesis or RNA formation but I read everything I can find on it, and then I try to tear it to shreds. Why? Because the limits of knowledge are where the fun is. To a scientist (and this can mean a mindset, not just a career) something unknown is something to celebrate and an invitation to get to work, not something to gloss over, and certainly not a reason to invoke the supernatural.

"..,the popular concept of evolution to know that life could not have originated by blind chance and that we did not arrive here by nothing more than random mutations over a long period of time."

If you really want to tick off a biologist (and come on, who doesn't ? It's hilarious, what with all the arm waving) say that natural selection is random or based on chance. Preferential reproduction and divergent speciation offers not only a robust explanation, it's observable. Nobody but detractors would say it's random.

Lastly, the points you bring up cover a spectrum of disciplines and require multiple library shelves to adequately address. That said, if you have specific questions, I'll give it a shot, with the stipulation that you can't greet every answer with, "yeah, but what about...?"
No fair moving the goal posts.

---

"It is easier to live one's life pointing only to science than it is to acknowledge something greater."

Really? I don't have any numbers handy, but by my observation the religious outnumber scientists by orders of magnitude, and I don't get out much.

 

[N2TORTS]

"A Creator I can Jive with " ......who or what ever that may be ...
but using the Bible as a reference is like reading Mad Magazine! Let me ask you Carl ....the native American Indians who were years ahead taking residence on this continent before " Whiteman arrived and his religious beliefs" had faith in several things ...they didn't need a Book the someone wrote , changed thru out the years to their likening and forced feed thru their ears. Bottom line when we came from abroad with "so called religious beliefs formed in Europe " The Indians were forced into agreeing with the Whiteman or they were executed on the spot.
If I may ask what religion are your parents?
EX:
So at 2 years old you might have ideals of who your God is , but the only reason why religion even exists today , because it is forced fed through your upbringing. This of curse until you had chance
( communication skills) to either rebel or become an adult not supported by your parents wings and ideologies.
I would assume you are Christian or Catholic ...but what if you were born in Japan?
Do you think you would have the same Religious outtake on who your creator is ?

 

[Yvonne G]

And you thought by starting a new thread it would be ok to talk about religion?

I don't know how you can debate evolution without bringing "God" into it, but we don't allow religious discussions here on the forum. So it seems to me the thread is doomed.

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

And you thought by starting a new thread it would be ok to talk about religion?

I don't know how you can debate evolution without bringing "God" into it, but we don't allow religious discussions here on the forum. So it seems to me the thread is doomed.

Doomed ? Oh man. And I was trying so hard to be fascinating, with universal appeal. Could i try something non-controversial, like politics?

 

[N2TORTS]

And you thought by starting a new thread it would be ok to talk about religion?

I don't know how you can debate evolution without bringing "God" into it, but we don't allow religious discussions here on the forum. So it seems to me the thread is doomed.

ok .. How about Justin Bieber ? .....

 

[N2TORTS]

Human neuroimaging studies have convincingly shown that the brain areas involved in aesthetic responses to artworks overlap with those that mediate the appraisal of objects of evolutionary importance, such as the desirability of foods or the attractiveness of potential mates. Hence, it is unlikely that there are brain systems specific to the appreciation of artworks; instead there are general aesthetic systems that determine how appealing an object is, be that a piece of cake or a piece of music even a selected mate.
Interesting enough more on your law statement....In the Roman empire times, people in charge of fighting crime received the advise that when in doubt between two persons about who committed the crime, blame and punish the ugliest of them.

 

[Jacqui]

Could i try something non-controversial, like politics?

Also not allowed.

---

ok .. How about Justin Bieber ? .....

Would be allowed, IF you could tie it into tortoises.

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

Could i try something non-controversial, like politics?

Also not allowed.

---

ok .. How about Justin Bieber ? .....

Would be allowed, IF you could tie it into tortoises.

---

Yeah, I was reaching for some levity there. No reason debates can't be fun. To that end, I would posit that Justin Bieber may in fact constitute evidence against a benign and loving creator, but I'm well out my lane (pun intended) and would rather get back to the sciencey nerdy stuff.

 

[diamondbp]

And you thought by starting a new thread it would be ok to talk about religion?

I don't know how you can debate evolution without bringing "God" into it, but we don't allow religious discussions here on the forum. So it seems to me the thread is doomed.

ok .. How about Justin Bieber ? .....

I vote for a Justin Beiber debate!

 

[Levi the Leopard]

Re: RE: Bombastic Pontificating- Rogue evolution thread

I don't know how you can debate evolution without bringing "God" into it, but we don't allow religious discussions here on the forum. So it seems to me the thread is doomed.

This is why discussions on evolution should be held to the same standard as discussions on intelligent design.
They are both theories on the origin of life.

I've seen enough scientific evidence to believe I was designed. That all things were designed.
Look at the digestive system for example. The ability to digest our food with stomach acids that are in a correct balance to not destroy our own stomach lining.
Male and female biology with the ability to reproduce.
Fossils are huge evidence for lots of things dying very quickly (like in a global flood) because if an animal dies and is left above the ground, the carcass isn't preserved in perfect order. Have any of you seen some of the fossils preserved in recent decades during large floods? Pretty neat.

The problem with debating evolution vs. design on a tort forum is no one is really looking to be persuaded by evidence.

I encourage people to really look into the details of what they believe and why.

 

[N2TORTS]

Heather here is a good read ..
Evolution of the digestive system:
http://www.cnsweb.org/extra/digestvertebrates/WWWEdStevensCDEvolution.html

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

"The problem with debating evolution vs. design on a tort forum is no one is really looking to be persuaded by evidence."

I know you are probably right, but i find it so sad that people would be persuaded by anything else. Logic and evidence are persuasive to me. What someone believes is not.

My motivation, naive though it may be, is that we are all biologists here, to varying degrees. Look at the effort made to analyze dietary requirements, natural habitat assessment, chart growth. Impressive stuff. It follows for me that maybe folks would like some context, hence the thread.

As for your examples, human reproduction and digestion, watch TV for and hour and see how many commercials are targeted to people with problems in these areas. They're actually very poorly 'designed' and clearly derived organs. As for a global flood; you can certainly believe it, or Bigfoot, or UFO's, but there isn't evidence for it, fossil or otherwise.

 

[diamondbp]

As for your examples, human reproduction and digestion, watch TV for and hour and see how many commercials are targeted to people with problems in these areas. They're actually very poorly 'designed' and clearly derived organs.

Your point here isn't valid.
You must consider two reasons why. First off is that to a believer in "the book", all creation (including humanity) in now subject to decay which was not the original design. So to look at our current state and act as if that is the way that "the diety" intended it is naive. I expect such things as cancer/ mutations/ diseases/ etc. because we live in a "fallen" state.
Secondly, if a perfectly healthy human eats natural healthy food then their "design" is pretty much flawless (other than dieing eventually). I have many friends that get upset with me because I am skinny and can pretty much eat whatever I want. My "design" seems to work quite well. I luckily don't deal with any digestive issues ever. I would imagine that the "original pair" from that "book" spoken of earlier wouldn't have dealt with any digestive issues either until they made that big "screw up".
We are all subject to decay. What's funny is that science really can't explain why things die?? THink about it. Not one single organism has "evolved" to live forever. It would seem that would be the most advantageous adapation of all wouldn't it? lol

ps. Did I eliminate the religious aspects affectively? lol I tried my best.

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

Actually Dianondbp, you're making my point that what you believe isn't persuasive or frankly interesting. But I can't keep you off the thread so ramble on.

Cdmay- you made an earlier point about 'survival of the fittest' in regards to nurturing. Far from being antithetical, it is strongly correlated to kin selection. It helps if you consider 'fittest' not as winning a street fight, but successful reproduction, particularly at the genetic level. In this case even if an individual was not directly reproducing, caring for related individuals would enhance the success of their common genes. Worker bees and ants are up to this when they defend the colony.

 

[Levi the Leopard]

Re: RE: Bombastic Pontificating- Rogue evolution thread

"The problem with debating evolution vs. design on a tort forum is no one is really looking to be persuaded by evidence."
.

I mean... someone believing in evolution isn't looking to be persuaded by evidence for design.

---

Also, look at the garbage we eat. Bleach in our white bread, sugars made in labs, GMOs, MCDONALDS. I largely contribute our health problems to those things.

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

"I mean... someone believing in evolution isn't looking to be persuaded by evidence for design."

What would that evidence even look like? Not only haven't I ever seen it, I've never heard a reasonable possibility proposed.