• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Evolution

Portillo said:
No scientist is going to say Im a biologist so I wont attempt to answer those questions.
Click to expand...

unfortunately, this is actually what most scientists say. philosophy is generally ridiculed by scientists. i think its mostly a personality thing- if you like set answers, science is for you, and philospohy really isn't, but that wont stop you mistakenly expecting philosophy to be able to provide answers in the same way science can.

there are times when scientists genuinely need to grapple philosophical questions to progress with their work- for example, how do you examine causality without defining it? but these are rare.
 
Bioethics is pretty much an indulgence afforded the rich & secure.
Click to expand...

Bioethics was first discussed after WWII and the discovery that the Nazis were experimenting on human beings. Its to make sure that things like that will never happen again so I don't see how its an indulgence for the rich as you put it.

True that when push comes to shove bioethics will be tested but I don't see it failing catastrophically. There are scientists out there who won't cross certain lines. You won't really find modern examples of the Tuskegee experiments for example.
 
chinup said:
unfortunately, this is actually what most scientists say. philosophy is generally ridiculed by scientists. i think its mostly a personality thing- if you like set answers, science is for you, and philospohy really isn't, but that wont stop you mistakenly expecting philosophy to be able to provide answers in the same way science can.

there are times when scientists genuinely need to grapple philosophical questions to progress with their work- for example, how do you examine causality without defining it? but these are rare.
Click to expand...

Richard Dawkins books are usually atheistic philosophy under the guise of biology.
 
The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable were both very good books. I found neither of them atheistic philosophy at all.
 
yes i think the OP just needs to read a good college level textbook on the subject of biology to clear up this whole matter.
 
Those are some of the best evidences for evolution in action that the textbooks provide. So when you ask a biologist, how do you get from a bacteria to a human over millions of years, they say look at those finches and how they changed.
 
6. In the 1950s, Stanley Miller produced amino acids by sending sparks through a mixture of gases.
Click to expand...

@portillo Just read your first post and you made a mistake in assuming that the things you listed are the only pieces of good evidence in support of evolution. First off number 6 has little to do with evolution but has more to do with Abiogenesis. So before you try to push the creationist agenda here understand the difference.

Those are some of the best evidences for evolution in action that the textbooks provide. So when you ask a biologist, how do you get from a bacteria to a human over millions of years, they say look at those finches and how they changed.
Click to expand...

Yes those are some good pieces of evidence but you completely left out transitional fossils as well as Speciation which is the process in which new species arise. Speciation has been observed in nature so I find it funny how you completely left that out. Me thinks you need to read more.
 
ironically, that number six of yours put a bigger dent in my credence in any creative hand than the more accurately evolutionary stuff. it might fill the gap between simple matter to complex organisms. just as dawkins' speculative crystallisation of clay.

note that in the books i noted, dawkins only speculates this, it is not strongly and obnoxiously asserted.

i still think it's a bit of both, but how much of each is being constantly reassessed. well, as constant as i have spare time for it.
 
I didnt say those were the only evidences for evolution.
Click to expand...

@Portillo If you read my post carefully I didn't say that you said this either. What you did say (and what I pointed out) was that the list you gave were the 'best' pieces of evidence in support of evolution while conveniently leaving out Speciation and transitional fossils which IMO is kind of dishonest.

You also listed the Urey-Miller experiment as evidence for evolution. This is wrong simply because it really doesn't have much to do with evolution but Abiogenesis which is a separate issue. Its an issue we don't know enough about to be sure but its relevance to evolution is well irrelevant as evolution is about how living things change not how non living things become living things.

I also find it funny how you decided to post this in philosophy and spirituality instead of in science and technology. If you had a legitimate scientific reason for challenging the theory of evolution why didn't you post it there? Instead you posted here deliberately forcing this into a philosophical discussion instead of a scientific one possibly because the science behind the theory of evolution is solid and sound while Creationists really have no argument other than philosophical/Biblical ones.
 
Last edited:
I never post in the science forum. Mods can move it if they want. We are just having friendly debate, no need for your heart to burn with rage.
 
^I don't know how you interpreted what I said as rage. Mild annoyance maybe but rage definitely not. Rage would be me flipping out on you and beating you to death with your own keyboard for your creationists beliefs and then pissing on your dead body as I burn your house down :). That aside it seems you have problems understanding what I am trying to say. Either that or you like hyperbole.

But if you're done sidestepping the issue would you mind (I ask with all civility and respect) answering why you left out Speciation and transitional fossils? And why you assume the Urey-miller experiment is evidence for evolution instead of for Abiogenesis?
 
Last edited:
Its not that I think biology and philosophy don't mix because they do. Biology is a sub field of philosophy any way. Look up the natural philosophy.

Every scientific field rose from philosophy.

What I mean't by saying "great biologist don't necessarily make great philosophers" was just reflecting my personal believe on Dawkins. I think Richard Dawkins is a great biologist! Super smart, many of his theories I love like us being gene survival machines. But, and this is a very big BUT, many of his ideas are simply just statements against theism. He has a huge personal bias against theism and it really shows in his writing. His books are more politically motivated than anything.

It is very hard to mix biology and philosophy without coming off as an ignorant loud mouth in popular science. You have to watch what you read because alot of seemily enlightening material is politically motivated these days. That doesn't take away from its truth value but whenever you read something you need to think about the motives of the author.
 
What I mean't by saying "great biologist don't necessarily make great philosophers" was just reflecting my personal believe on Dawkins. I think Richard Dawkins is a great biologist! Super smart, many of his theories I love like us being gene survival machines. But, and this is a very big BUT, many of his ideas are simply just statements against theism. He has a huge personal bias against theism and it really shows in his writing. His books are more politically motivated than anything.

It is very hard to mix biology and philosophy without coming off as an ignorant loud mouth in popular science. You have to watch what you read because alot of seemily enlightening material is politically motivated these days. That doesn't take away from its truth value but whenever you read something you need to think about the motives of the author.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
freddy47 said:
^I don't know how you interpreted what I said as rage. Mild annoyance maybe but rage definitely not. Rage would be me flipping out on you and beating you to death with your own keyboard for your creationists beliefs and then pissing on your dead body as I burn your house down :). That aside it seems you have problems understanding what I am trying to say. Either that or you like hyperbole.

But if you're done sidestepping the issue would you mind (I ask with all civility and respect) answering why you left out Speciation and transitional fossils? And why you assume the Urey-miller experiment is evidence for evolution instead of for Abiogenesis?
Click to expand...

I was debating the creative power of natural selection, not speciation or fossils. Anyway, Im probably going to retire from this thread. Thanks for debating. :)
 
I was debating the creative power of natural selection, not speciation or fossils. Anyway, Im probably going to retire from this thread. Thanks for debating.
Click to expand...

Wasn't much of a debate really.
 
Portillo's got solid faith. If he's anything he's been consistent in that regard, which i respect. But I don't know why he starts these threads though, must just be in a fightin mood.
 
I don't have evidence, I better dip.
Click to expand...

lol So true. :)

Portillo's got solid faith. If he's anything he's been consistent in that regard, which i respect. But I don't know why he starts these threads though, must just be in a fightin mood.
Click to expand...

Faith can be a good thing. Not arguing against that. And I respect his beliefs and I hope he respects mine (I don't think he does but whatever I'll still respect his but that doesn't mean I won't challenge his beliefs). It becomes a problem however when faith distorts reason though and blinds one from seeing the truth. I went to a Christian High school and our biology teacher was a faithful Christian and yet he had no problems with also believing in the theory of evolution. All the Bible teachers disliked him and one even said that he feared for his (the biology teachers) soul because he thought anybody who believed in evolution is not a true Christian. I never understood why it has to be one or the other with these fundamentalists.

Even though I tend to lean towards atheism I don't think the theory of evolution necessarily disproves the existence of a god. Nor do I think believing in God means you can't believe in evolution as well. Its a non issue for me.

I do have an issue with Creationism being put forth as science however. Creationism is among other things mostly political and religious. But science it definitely isn't. And the fact that people are trying to push Creationism into science classrooms really pisses me off. It doesn't belong there. Even at my school which taught creationism and evolution didn't think to put them in the same classroom. We learned Biology in Biology class and Creationism and Genesis in Bible classes. They were viewed as separate things for a reason.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top