Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

Originally posted by Helious


Ah, I know the old tired routine where you tell me science has no agenda and theory and facts and blah blah blah. It's old and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. When scientists stop working for universities who have a figure head who reports to donors and share holders talk to me....

Uhh, no. I have not said that and will not. I merely asked you to show me how evolution is a 'broken theory', but you were unable to do so.

I'll simplify my question, Can you explain to me what you think the Theory of Evolution is, specifically?

I suspect that may be a good starting point. Please, define what you are refuting.

reply to post by stanguilles7


I'm refuting the entire thing. I refute the notion that science has any idea whatsoever about human history and really is just a best guess. I refute the notion of the age of mankind and civilization. I refute the idea that 2 million pound monoliths were carved by antler horns from what science literally describes as a monkeys uncle.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think science is bad and in fact, I think it is good and very useful for alot of things. I just don't think it's useful when you wan't to apply common sense or reasonable logic to look at a situation, science does not allow for either of those things.

reply to post by blueorder


Are you trying to be funny, or are you actually serious? I hope you're just messing around... because if not my hope for humanity just dropped a little.

Let's accept, hypothetically, your questionable generalization that Africans are better at running and whites better at swimming, this wouldn't in any way refute the idea of human beings originating in Africa. See the genetic evidence suggests that the human species migrated out of Africa and as that happened populations became isolated, as they became isolated they began to become different. The longer these populations remained isolated the more different they became, that's how evolution works. That's why we white folks are, well, white, we adapted to our environment.

One example of remarkable human evolution - Tibetans have been found to carry special genes that allow them to survive in altitudes the rest of us would find extremely inhospitable. Rather than being a problem for evolution this actually supports it.

if we are all Africans does that mean, I, as a white man, can move to America and claim African American status?

Now you're just being silly - we're not literally Africans, we descended from the first humans that evolved there.

As for the OP itself I don't think the debate will ever end, in that there will ALWAYS be Creationists. I was raised a Creationist and taught to mock and distrust evolution and those that supported it, as long as there are ignorant parents there will be ignorant children and not everyone will escape that indoctrination the way I did.

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

I'm refuting the entire thing. I refute the notion that science has any idea whatsoever about human history and really is just a best guess. I refute the notion of the age of mankind and civilization. I refute the idea that 2 million pound monoliths were carved by antler horns from what science literally describes as a monkeys uncle.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think science is bad and in fact, I think it is good and very useful for alot of things. I just don't think it's useful when you wan't to apply common sense or reasonable logic to look at a situation, science does not allow for either of those things.

edit on 27-5-2012 by Helious because: (no reason given)

You can't refute something if you cant define it.

Perhaps you think 'refute' means 'dont understand'.

Thanks for the responses, this topic has tuned into a pretty good debate.I think Helious has made a pretty good point, in that there are holes in some of these theories. Some of human history we really just don't know. All we can do is posit an educated guess. Where it gets dangerous is when some scientists claim some things as absolute fact no matter how impossible it may sound. They have to make things fit, or it throws their whole theory out the window. A good example are the Giza Pyramids. Each pyramid has approx 2.5 million stones weighing approx 2.5 tons, cut from a quarry a couple hundred miles away. They somehow got slaves to precisely cut and drag these stones into place with little more technology than a caveman(tongue in cheek). I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it's virtually impossible. Scientists are just guessing to make it fit with the accepted timeline of human history, regardless of how absurd it may be (just like religion). PS: The numbers a I cited are off the top of my head. They may not be exact, but they're close.

reply to post by stanguilles7

You can't refute something if you cant define it. Perhaps you think 'refute' means 'dont understand'.

That doesn't make any sense. I did define it perfectly well. I refute the science behind the dating of our first civilizations. I refute the the claims that we went from being cave men to magically appearing across the globe as full bloom society's capable of building monuments on the scale of the Temple of Jupiter or the Great Pyramid.

I absolutely and without doubt refute the notion that science is actual science in this day and age. As a scientist, you are free to conduct experiments, explain truths, adopt theory's only when department heads and respected peers tell you that you can. Stray off the path and you spend the rest of of your life on lecture circuits in hotel lobbies for your troubles.

Spare me the painful debate about how science is my salvation and the only true path for mankind to follow as it has given us so much and plucked our feeble minds from the dark ages. I'ts imperfect and rife with alternative motives and ideals. One last thing, speaking of mistaking "refute" with "don't understand" maybe I could do what science does when it dosen't understand something, I could just make it up to make the math work.

Hows that dark matter thing going anyway?

People who follow religion of nearly any kind are the most closed minded of anyone out there.

I'm a theocrat, which by definition means I'm open to all sorts of ideas.

However, the idea of evolution seems a lot more likely than the idea of some magical all knowing being in the sky.

As kids, most of us eventually grow out of believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny, but many adults replace these with their imaginary friend called "God" and don't see a problem with that.

Originally posted by babybunnies
People who follow religion of nearly any kind are the most closed minded of anyone out there.

According to whom?

I'm a theocrat, which by definition means I'm open to all sorts of ideas.

However, the idea of evolution seems a lot more likely than the idea of some magical all knowing being in the sky.

An all knowing being is not something 'magical'. It could have evolved or it may have originated in a different world or it may not have an origin at all (just like the infinite universe theory). What is so magical about a being who knows a lot more than us?

I think its the human arrogance and ego that is so 'magical'.

As kids, most of us eventually grow out of believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny, but many adults replace these with their imaginary friend called "God" and don't see a problem with that.

Do you really believe that you could compare Easter Bunny with the theory of an intelligent creator?

reply to post by Helious

I refute the the claims that we went from being cave men to magically appearing across the globe as full bloom society's capable of building monuments on the scale of the Temple of Jupiter or the Great Pyramid.

Magically? So you think thats what science claims? How about long biological and cultural development over tens of thousands of years? And this early civilisations have more to do with social history than biological evolution, so this does not even refute anything.

As a scientist, you are free to conduct experiments, explain truths, adopt theory's only when department heads and respected peers tell you that you can. Stray off the path and you spend the rest of of your life on lecture circuits in hotel lobbies for your troubles.

I think this is more based on urban legends than reality.

Spare me the painful debate about how science is my salvation and the only true path for mankind to follow as it has given us so much and plucked our feeble minds from the dark ages. I'ts imperfect and rife with alternative motives and ideals.

Yes. But it is a lot closer to perfection than you want to admit. Evolution is fact as much as Earth being round, we can be pretty sure of that.

Hows that dark matter thing going anyway?

Dark matter HYPOTHESIS is doing well, thanks for asking. Still far from settled science tough, unlike evolution.

reply to post by Helious

Uh, sure. It doesn't explain any of THESE in point of fact, science often times just ignores things that it can't explain and that's a big problem when you seek truth.

What does the phenomenon of shifts in allele frequency over successive generations or the overarching theory explaining biodiversity have to do with a list of "out of place artifacts"?

Ah, I know the old tired routine where you tell me science has no agenda and theory and facts and blah blah blah. It's old and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. When scientists stop working for universities who have a figure head who reports to donors and share holders talk to me....

You seem to be suggesting that there's a global conspiracy amongst a group of people know for their ego and contrariness. Getting the global community of scientists to all stifle all research in an area or to have all of their various research artificially point in the same direction would be nigh on impossible. Then again, you're being suitably vague in your assertion here that you'll be able to claim that I misinterpreted you.

When scientist are allowed to express there own opinion other than what has been formulated for them without being labeled a heretic or kook by the establishment talk to me. There is too small of a window with what is allowed to be spoken or thought within the science world lest you risk your lifes work and in that fact and because of it, science is currently broken as it comes to describing human history. Evolution included.

If this were the case, men like Michael Behe would have lost their jobs long ago. Keep in mind that I agree with you in regard to our assumptions about the technological advancement of our ancestors. Anatomically modern humans have been around for about the last fifty millennia and Homo sapiens has been present for around a quarter of a million years. But underestimations regarding the level of technical prowess of early civilizations doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution.

Before you say anything I would like you too think of four words and just how silly they are. "Dark matter" and "Big bang" lol, it's funny to even say them and then think about science seriously....

Again, two concepts that have nothing to do with the phenomenon of evolution or modern evolutionary synthesis. Which was the topic of this thread.

reply to post by Helious

I'm refuting the entire thing. I refute the notion that science has any idea whatsoever about human history and really is just a best guess. I refute the notion of the age of mankind and civilization. I refute the idea that 2 million pound monoliths were carved by antler horns from what science literally describes as a monkeys uncle.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think science is bad and in fact, I think it is good and very useful for alot of things. I just don't think it's useful when you wan't to apply common sense or reasonable logic to look at a situation, science does not allow for either of those things.

"I'm refuting all the bits of science! Except for the bits that make my life easier, the bits that I personally like, and the bits that allow me to complain about the other bits!"

Talk about a lack of logic or common sense.

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

I'm refuting the entire thing. I refute the notion that science has any idea whatsoever about human history and really is just a best guess.

well there's a nice self contradiction!! lol

either it has no idea....or it has a "best guess" - 'cos a "best guess" is not ""no idea"

And given that there is actually a lot of information that forms the basis for "sciences best guess" it's pretty dishonest trying to imply that it (the "best guess") is something less than what it is - a conclusion based upon a vast amount of material derived through the scientific method.

Blithely ignoring the basis makes you look a bit silly really.

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

I refute the the claims that we went from being cave men to magically appearing across the globe as full bloom society's capable of building monuments on the scale of the Temple of Jupiter or the Great Pyramid.

Thus rejecting all religious accounts of creation then......since they have all that magic stuff and an instantaneous "creation" that science does not.

OK - so you reject science, and you reject religion...what is it you do actually believe in??

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

You can't refute something if you cant define it. Perhaps you think 'refute' means 'dont understand'.

That doesn't make any sense. I did define it perfectly well. I refute the science behind the dating of our first civilizations. I refute the the claims that we went from being cave men to magically appearing across the globe as full bloom society's capable of building monuments on the scale of the Temple of Jupiter or the Great Pyramid.

I absolutely and without doubt refute the notion that science is actual science in this day and age. As a scientist, you are free to conduct experiments, explain truths, adopt theory's only when department heads and respected peers tell you that you can. Stray off the path and you spend the rest of of your life on lecture circuits in hotel lobbies for your troubles.

Spare me the painful debate about how science is my salvation and the only true path for mankind to follow as it has given us so much and plucked our feeble minds from the dark ages. I'ts imperfect and rife with alternative motives and ideals. One last thing, speaking of mistaking "refute" with "don't understand" maybe I could do what science does when it dosen't understand something, I could just make it up to make the math work.

Hows that dark matter thing going anyway?

I am with stanguilles on this one.

You seem to use the word "refute" an awful lot, but ironically haven't refuted anything.

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by Helious

 

Can you please detail how evolution is a 'broken theory'?
.

Uh, sure. It doesn't explain any of THESE

Perhaps you should actually read that article before suggesting that it is evidence that evolution is "broken"??

or at least point out what it is in it that you think supports your contention - 'cos I don't see anything there that might do so.

I cannot believe that a serious researcher actually said Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena.

Seriously? What the hell? I think it's about time physicists and geophysicists start laying down the law, and to quit cronying colleagues coughLAWRENCEKRAUSScough. This anthropology/climatology nonsense is growing out of hand.

reply to post by imherejusttoread


I think it depends upon how you read the "if not created" bit.

I read it to say that "man didn't create it, but has certainly accelerated it" - which is, of course, just the standard anthropogenic global warming theory & presumably no-one is surprised that serious researchers can say that - even if they don't agree with the conclusion.

However I think perhaps you might have read is as "man might have created, but in any case certainly accelerated it...."?? which would imply that the climate change might have been started by humanity and perhaps there was never any climate change before mankind evolved.

THAT would certainly be a startling announcement!! But not what I think was meant.

Originally posted by blueorder
How does Leckey explain the fact that 100 metre sprint podiums are dominated by West Africans and swimming podiums are dominated by whites- that aint a myth explained with convoluted language- if we are all Africans does that mean, I, as a white man, can move to America and claim African American status?

Am I native American?

there was a time the NBA was dominated by jewish folks. because it's an urban game. how many olympic pools are in west africa ?

race is biologically insignificant

in leakeys opinion we are all descendants of africans, like his lucy

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

OK - so you reject science, and you reject religion...what is it you do actually believe in??

Hey, maybe he's a solipsist. After all if we can't know anything about evolution or history from genetics, archaeology, ancient writings, mythology, etc then clearly we can't know anything at all about anything. After all isn't it possible all of science is just a "best guess". That whole gravity thing, atomic theory, and of course quantum mechanics, just a load of best guesses supported by almost no evidence. We're all just NPCs in a video game created in Helious' brain, and that is just floating in a vat somewhere

reply to post by BagBing


Thank you for "refuting?" me. Please continue to do so!