Discussion of Evolution

k3lt01 · 08-28-2013, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TB0ne

Lots, and lots more partials. Again, easily looked up, and anyone from your local university would probably be able to help you too. This article is a few years old, but is nicely done:
http://pactiss.org/wp-content/upload...t-Nonsense.pdf

...from Scientific American.

And didn't you say you were leaving?

If this thread is going to go this way I will ask for it to be closed. More than Blue has said they were going to leave LQ and are still here, or have come back. I invited anyone to make comment or ask questions but also asked they stay within the scope of this thread which is pretty clear. Blue asked a valid question and he has been answered by Randicus. As Randicus pointed out, which when you say "Lots, and lots more partials" you are indeed incorrect, there are no full skeletal remains of many of these genus/species. btw the pdf you linked to is by definition of its name an argument against religious belief, lets not drag religion into this instead lets use the scientific process and clear heads.

jamison20000e · 08-29-2013, 08:45 AM

Vision of Compassion Western Scientist and Tibetan Buddhists Examine Human Nature I just started reading this good book on this subject... Evolution of control and blissfulness...

can't build a bridge from top down have to start at the bottom

TB0ne · 08-29-2013, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k3lt01

If this thread is going to go this way I will ask for it to be closed. More than Blue has said they were going to leave LQ and are still here, or have come back. I invited anyone to make comment or ask questions but also asked they stay within the scope of this thread which is pretty clear. Blue asked a valid question and he has been answered by Randicus. As Randicus pointed out, which when you say "Lots, and lots more partials" you are indeed incorrect, there are no full skeletal remains of many of these genus/species. btw the pdf you linked to is by definition of its name an argument against religious belief, lets not drag religion into this instead lets use the scientific process and clear heads.

It was not my intent to derail things at all...that is a very well written article that touches on many topics that are relevant, and points to the science behind those topics, so someone could research things on their own, if they so desired.

And while technically correct that no 'full' skeletal remains have been found (that is, 100% intact), there have been several found which don't leave much to the imagination, and are considered 'full' (such as Lucy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%2...alopithecus%29 and homo-ergaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster). Some partials (such as the recently found 'hobbit' skeleton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis), while incomplete, can be used to estimate many things based on previous knowledge, such as tibia length, allowing a scientist to estimate height, and from that musculature.

I recommended that blue go to a local university, since (as with previous threads by that poster), a seemingly innocent question as that leads to a full-bore 'debate', where any evidence is summarily dismissed. An anthropologist would be able to explain it better.

H_TeXMeX_H · 08-29-2013, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

It will probably help matters if we consider exactly what, say, Charles Darwin, was and was not doing. He was not making, and of course could never make, any sort of declaration. Instead, he was engaging in philosophy of science.

PoS (the alternative term "scientific philosophy" is misleading since "scientific" sounds like an adjective) can be thought of as thinking about "thinking." The principal game is to take a line of reasoning and to explore just how far (and in what areas) you can or cannot take it without encountering what appears to be a contradiction. You might be right, you might be wrong, and either way you will never know for sure. But you can explore a solution-space that way. This was, and is, a standard practice of science for use in cases where "the experimental method" cannot be used.

After observing that objects in nature do "evolve," Darwin and others speculated, in this controlled and well-defined way, just how far "evolution" could (maybe) go "without apparent contradiction." And he found that it could go a very long way, even to the point of being "The Origin of Species." (Leaving Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus out of it.) If you've ever actually read the book (and it's difficult reading ...) he does seem to make that point quite convincingly. Does that make it "True?" Of course we will never know ... and in any case, "without apparent contradiction" does not mean "true." (Or, "false.")

Same song, second verse, when it comes to "all those bones." Do we "know?" No. Can we? No. But, once again, we can use the tool of philosophy of science to guide our speculations and explorations ... abstract though those explorations must be. They will not create "truth" where truth cannot be known. We weren't there. We didn't see it. We can't test it.

PoS supplies a framework for speculation and exploration of things for which "an experiment" cannot be constructed, and for which "empirical evidence" does not exist. All of these writings were intended to be viewed in that light ... not as expressions or assertions of (by definition, unobtainable) "TRVTH."

I agree, and I think that philosophy is most definitely needed, precisely because the "truth" is not obtainable. I would say that science without philosophy becomes a very dangerous and potentially misleading field. And yet, the wrong philosophy doesn't improve upon it at all, and may make it worse.

I say keep a few things in mind:
1) Observation (done carefully and accurately) is just as important as experimentation, if not more important. After all, a lab environment is a highly artificial one. Always ask: How applicable are the results in the real world (vs. the lab)?
2) Thinking about the data is extremely important, as is knowing things in varied fields in order to be able to investigate and integrate the data. I think thinking is one thing that science greatly lacks nowadays.
3) When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. ~Sherlock Holmes. Well, almost, but certainly the process of elimination is very useful and should be applied more often. If it doesn't make sense, cut it out and be done with it.
4) An Occam-like razor is also useful. My version would be: The fewer assumptions / dependencies the better, as long as it can still explain the phenomenon. This solves a huge number of problems in both science and philosophy (and computing).

k3lt01 · 08-29-2013, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TB0ne

It was not my intent to derail things at all...that is a very well written article that touches on many topics that are relevant, and points to the science behind those topics, so someone could research things on their own, if they so desired.

I wasn't going to let you derail anything, this thread was started to encourage anyone and everyone to talk Evolution (read the OP and tags for the rest). Bringing other things into it and also going on about Blue saying he was leaving isn't very open or encouraging.

BTW I read that article. 2 things, it was a rant and written as such and there are mistakes in it. My guess is it is quite old and anyone who has access to a university can find out for themselves, I'm not discussing it futher as it is of topic, what the problems are.

k3lt01 · 08-29-2013, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H

I agree, and I think that philosophy is most definitely needed, precisely because the "truth" is not obtainable. I would say that science without philosophy becomes a very dangerous and potentially misleading field. And yet, the wrong philosophy doesn't improve upon it at all, and may make it worse.

Excellent point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H

1) Observation (done carefully and accurately) is just as important as experimentation, if not more important. After all, a lab environment is a highly artificial one. Always ask: How applicable are the results in the real world (vs. the lab)?

Exactly right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H

2) Thinking about the data is extremely important, as is knowing things in varied fields in order to be able to investigate and integrate the data. I think thinking is one thing that science greatly lacks nowadays.

I think this is because to many people are trying to see things that maybe aren't there. However the opposite (over thinking) is also as bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H

3) When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. ~Sherlock Holmes. Well, almost, but certainly the process of elimination is very useful and should be applied more often. If it doesn't make sense, cut it out and be done with it.

Only problem here is what makes sense to some people doesn't make sense to others. Who then becomes the adjudicator of "sense"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H

4) An Occam-like razor is also useful. My version would be: The fewer assumptions / dependencies the better, as long as it can still explain the phenomenon. This solves a huge number of problems in both science and philosophy (and computing).

Problem here is that this approach can lead to an over simplification and if 3 (above) is taken into account and 2 (also above) where a lack of thinking because something doesn't make sense it is automatically of no use, we lose a proportion of the overall picture.

jamison20000e · 08-29-2013, 06:38 PM

Evolve: Series in Affective Science; Feelings the Principles of Self...

And, for me: Writing With Power
"Presents writing techniques useful for getting words on paper, for revising, for dealing with an audience, and for getting feedback."

I didn't mean to throw a monkey wrench in either.
____

Randicus Draco Albus · 08-31-2013, 03:32 AM

The thread can now be officially considered a success. It is attracting spam.

k3lt01 · 08-31-2013, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus

The thread can now be officially considered a success. It is attracting spam.

I haven't seen any since the thread was cleaned up.

jamison20000e · 08-31-2013, 08:30 AM

:LOL.

Spam is in Evolution too e.g: meat, net, opinions... Like the fact that a few isn't 10 and redundant. I should try blocking him to see if he is full of it but I can't be so childish, although I guess i can.

k3lt01 · 09-02-2013, 05:37 AM

It seems TB and Humans evolved (to a certain extent) and spread together. That would suggest that human populations that left Africa before TB initially florished would never have been exposed to it until a later migration event brought it through contact. This raises alot of questions that could only be answered by finding skeletal remains that indicate tubercular decay. I wonder if remains will be re-examined now.

H_TeXMeX_H · 09-05-2013, 02:14 AM

Here's a very interesting new article on genetic convergent evolution:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13...iverse-animals
By "very interesting" I mean it may blow your mind.

k3lt01 · 09-05-2013, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H

Here's a very interesting new article on genetic convergent evolution:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13...iverse-animals
By "very interesting" I mean it may blow your mind.

I don't find 6 line snippets on slashdot mind blowing.

The actual article, another link altogether, is interesting and brings about the question, bringing this back to the evolution of the human species, could we have evolve in seperate locations and not in Africa as suggested by the Out of Africa theory? If yes, why aren't there remains as old as Africa? I'd suggest we didn't.

Arcane · 09-05-2013, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k3lt01

I don't find 6 line snippets on slashdot mind blowing.{...}

Once again we can agree. Commentary however is more interesting in that slashdot link than actual snippet.

brianL · 09-05-2013, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k3lt01

could we have evolve in seperate locations and not in Africa as suggested by the Out of Africa theory? If yes, why aren't there remains as old as Africa? I'd suggest we didn't.

Just because remains haven't been found, doesn't mean they don't exist. Pretty obvious, to me, anyway. How much of the land area of Europe and Asia been searched? Any likely places been searched at all?