Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you. I am not a public or private school teacher--don't have the credentials for that--but I did a bit of substitute teaching and have tutored students from time to time. I also have some experience in formal debate and have served as a debate coach on a couple of occasions which is where I taught logical fallacies. But I do love to teach and apparently am pretty good at it has I have had many many opportunities to do that over the years.

I was a natural history interpreter for my state during college and summers and I taught briefly at a university, but I'm not trained in education in any formal way. I've always found that to be a contradiction that PhD programs lead to professors that very often have never had any formal training in education. Fortunately, I seem to have been lucky in finding most that appeared to have picked up on it.

I did debate in my high school and took a class in public speaking as an undergrad, but that is about it. I learned of and about logical fallacies largely on my own from engaging in debates and discussions on line mostly. I regret never having taken a formal course in logic. That seems like it would have been profitable. A failure out of my own ignorance and focus.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was a natural history interpreter for my state during college and summers and I taught briefly at a university, but I'm not trained in education in any formal way. I've always found that to be a contradiction that PhD programs lead to professors that very often have never had any formal training in education. Fortunately, I seem to have been lucky in finding most that appeared to have picked up on it.

I did debate in my high school and took a class in public speaking as an undergrad, but that is about it. I learned of and about logical fallacies largely on my own from engaging in debates and discussions on line mostly. I regret never having taken a formal course in logic. That seems like it would have been profitable. A failure out of my own ignorance and focus.

Don't beat yourself up on lack of formal training in logic. You don't need formal training to be logical and from your posts I've observed so far, you are not at all deficient that department.

As for teaching ability, I'm sure a degree in education includes some tips and methods for teaching, but I think whether or not a person has formal training in teaching, those with high aptitude to teach along with enjoyment of teaching will be good at it. And for those lacking the aptitude, no amount of formal education will make them a good teacher.

I have accepted that I have an aptitude for teaching because I have been invited to do it by a number of different groups and they seem to appreciate what I do. I know I love doing it.

The only teaching I have done re evolution is in comparing Creationism with the Theory of Evolution when doing Bible Study/History of Development of Christian Thought. But I have a passion for science and history and enjoy exploring both.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science does not evolve. Science is absolute unless God decides to alter the laws of science for whatever reason. (The Bible story of Jesus calming the wind and waves of the storm comes to mine.) Our knowledge of science evolves and I believe we have a very long way to go to understand a lot of it let alone all there is to know. As for the rest of your comment I think I probably addressed that in my post #3,019 responding to you.

I disagree that science does not evolve. The science of 500 years ago is nothing like it is today. Today is nothing like it was even 50 or 70 years ago. Even the core principles of the scientific method have been refined through the course of time as we learn more and test more. Thinking about it, I'm not certain when some of that core moved into being. Where I work, we have an enormous volume of instrumentation that with very high throughput that didn't exist in such a state 40 years ago when I was first introduced to them. I learned by manually analyzing individual compounds by a means that is slow and antique by todays standards and it was likely state of the art at the time.

I do agree that our knowledge evolves as we continue to test, observe, learn and adjust from the process. That is a built in component of the methodology that the answers found through science must ever remain tentative. Even when considering something as thoroughly and widely evidenced as the theory of evolution.

Of course, if we knew everything, we wouldn't need methods to learn anything and no need of sciences. How much we know, I cannot say, but I believe it is considerable compared to what we do know. And that includes application to the more mundane as well as the more esoteric and seemingly wonderous. It isn't just great things we don't know. It is often small things about the already known or the application of that knowledge where we learn even more or could.

But that does not mean what we do know is diminished or useless or by its potentially comparative status is subject to the default to a particular belief.

As far as the laws we have discovered and named, they do seem to be the same wherever or whenever they are considered. At least assumed so where there is no reason to think they are not the same.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, oh. The internet or this site is acting up again. Sigh.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Don't beat yourself up on lack of formal training in logic. You don't need formal training to be logical and from your posts I've observed so far, you are not at all deficient that department.

As for teaching ability, I'm sure a degree in education includes some tips and methods for teaching, but I think whether or not a person has formal training in teaching, those with high aptitude to teach along with enjoyment of teaching will be good at it. And for those lacking the aptitude, no amount of formal education will make them a good teacher.

I have accepted that I have an aptitude for teaching because I have been invited to do it by a number of different groups and they seem to appreciate what I do. I know I love doing it.

The only teaching I have done re evolution is in comparing Creationism with the Theory of Evolution when doing Bible Study. But I have a passion for science and history and enjoy exploring both.

I was thinking in terms of the fact that most PhD's that teach at universities started out and are trained in carrying out scientific investigations, recording, reporting and defending their findings and not so often educated or trained to teach. In fact, in many cases, it is graduate students that do a fair bit of it. I suppose the saving trait is that most seem to love the work they do and keep up with science in general. That helps greatly in teaching.

I try to be logical and recognize my own biases. It seems, like character flaws, to be easier to spot them in others than oneself. Or be harder on oneself than others.

Still, my view is that I will be learning until I no longer possess the faculties to continue on. Even if not a teacher or qualified to be one, always a student.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree that science does not evolve. The science of 500 years ago is nothing like it is today. Today is nothing like it was even 50 or 70 years ago. Even the core principles of the scientific method have been refined through the course of time as we learn more and test more. Thinking about it, I'm not certain when some of that core moved into being. Where I work, we have an enormous volume of instrumentation that with very high throughput that didn't exist in such a state 40 years ago when I was first introduced to them. I learned by manually analyzing individual compounds by a means that is slow and antique by todays standards and it was likely state of the art at the time.

I do agree that our knowledge evolves as we continue to test, observe, learn and adjust from the process. That is a built in component of the methodology that the answers found through science must ever remain tentative. Even when considering something as thoroughly and widely evidenced as the theory of evolution.

Of course, if we knew everything, we wouldn't need methods to learn anything and no need of sciences. How much we know, I cannot say, but I believe it is considerable compared to what we do know. And that includes application to the more mundane as well as the more esoteric and seemingly wonderous. It isn't just great things we don't know. It is often small things about the already known or the application of that knowledge where we learn even more or could.

But that does not mean what we do know is diminished or useless or by its potentially comparative status is subject to the default to a particular belief.

As far as the laws we have discovered and named, they do seem to be the same wherever or whenever they are considered. At least assumed so where there is no reason to think they are not the same.

Well we may have a disagreement in semantics here but when I say that science does not evolve, I am saying that science is. It is what it is. Our knowledge of it definitely evolves as we better understand it and learn ways to use it more effectively, but the science itself is what it is. Conditions change, climate changes, situations change, our understanding and perceptions change, but IMO the laws of science do not change. Atomic weight will remain the same regardless of what language is used to describe it. The heavenly objects will continue to move in 100% predictable ways whether or not we are accurate in our predictions. The elements remain what they are whether or not we have identified all of them. Climate changes and the dynamics of that are still poorly understood, but I'm pretty sure the possibility of accurately predicting that exists out there somewhere eons ahead of our time.

But then I believe in God and that God is the creator of science along with everything else and I accept that He puts the laws of the universe into place but can do whatever He wants above and beyond the scientific laws that we have. That allows me a certain freedom in my perceptions that maybe those who don't believe in a Supreme Being don't have in how they perceive things. I don't know. I try not to second guess Him.

I doubt we are all that far apart in our conclusions on this though.

 

[cladking]

The modern human brain has two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The inner self is older and is common to all animals and was/is a product of evolution. The ego is newer and is only found in humans. The ego is empty at birth and evolves from outside, in, via culture; education and the super ego of culture. The ego appears to have consolidated 6-10K years ago.

The story of Adam and Eve is really about the appearance of the ego and the loss of natural instinct from the inner self. A new version of humans appeared, with human DNA but an extra ego center; seed, within the brain.

Contemporary humans are more ego-centric and few are even aware of the inner self, even though the inner self is the mainframe part of the brain. When we walk, all we need to do is think command lines, and the inner self takes over the driving.

I believe we are using different words to say the same thing.

"The God built the pyramids", is an ancient projection of the inner self helping the early ego. The ancients were less ego-centric and the inner self was far more conscious, and often projected as the gods; firmware of the inner self.

Same here. But in this case there is a tie to reality as the great pyramids actually exist and were built by some physical means. The ancients were less ego centric using your terms but the pyramids weren't built with the inner self or the ego. There was a physical mechanism by which they were built and the actual builders called these mechanisms "neters" which we mistranslate as "gods". "Neters" were actually natural process that built the pyramids.

This useful effect can be witnessed, if you ever owned a kitten. They will spontaneously play a game of chasing imaginary prey. In essence, their inner self plays little training programs or films, so they can imagine little prey, helping them to develop skills, into neural and muscle memory. In terms of building the pyramids, dreams and visions were their training films, from the main frame, that the ancient ego would follow; sacred rituals for neural and muscle memory.

The analogy is a PC and a mainframe with the PC networked to the mainframe as a terminal. The modern ego is more stand alone and works within limits of the PC, unconscious it is also a terminal. The ancients understood the terminal nature to the gods; main frame operating system. They could run programs, and get results that appear way above their pay grade; main frame output to the terminal. Math that might take forever on the PC to process, can be done quickly on the mainframe. The Egyptians envisioned the needed skills; inner self=helpful gods, and then the ego helped to teach others, and make it into reality.

The inner self, although natural and genetic based, changed when the ego appeared, since it now had an extra data stream that was on top of natural, causing the inner self to change and evolve differently; inner self domestication effect and more sophistication.

Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought you said science didn't evolve.

Good.
Noöne is saying that science explains all that exists, and evolution's explanations only concern the mechanisms of change within populations.

The constraints of all the sciences are the laws and constants of nature and mathematics. A God bound by these would be a god with no more power than we have.
To create ex nihilo; to speak a thing into existence or breathe life into a thing, is to circumvent the normal constraints of nature. This has never been observed. Proposed examples have always been found explicable by ordinary chemistry or physics.

God retreats to the margins of science, residing today in abiogenesis or Big Bang cosmology, where science has not yet worked out the details.

Worked out the details???

 

[YoursTrue]

Well we may have a disagreement in semantics here but when I say that science does not evolve, I am saying that science is. It is what it is. Our knowledge of it definitely evolves as we better understand it and learn ways to use it more effectively, but the science itself is what it is. Conditions change, climate changes, situations change, our understanding and perceptions change, but IMO the laws of science do not change. Atomic weight will remain the same regardless of what language is used to describe it. The heavenly objects will continue to move in 100% predictable ways whether or not we are accurate in our predictions. The elements remain what they are whether or not we have identified all of them. Climate changes and the dynamics of that are still poorly understood, but I'm pretty sure the possibility of accurately predicting that exists out there somewhere eons ahead of our time.

But then I believe in God and that God is the creator of science along with everything else and I accept that He puts the laws of the universe into place but can do whatever He wants above and beyond the scientific laws that we have. That allows me a certain freedom in my perceptions that maybe those who don't believe in a Supreme Being don't have in how they perceive things. I don't know. I try not to second guess Him.

I doubt we are all that far apart in our conclusions on this though.

Here's what I'm seeing (in harmony with your viewpoint here) -- Adam and Eve were left on their own because they both wanted it. Eve for one reason, and Adam for another. We, as their progeny or offspring, are inheriting the problematic and devastating circumstances their willful independence brought about.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's what I'm seeing (in harmony with your viewpoint here) -- Adam and Eve were left on their own because they both wanted it. Eve for one reason, and Adam for another. We, as their progeny or offspring, are inheriting the problematic and devastating circumstances their willful independence brought about.

That is certainly one explanation.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is certainly one explanation.

I think so. Some think (maybe?) they can clear up some things, I guess. Doesn't look like it though.

 

[shunyadragon]

As you respond to it, ggs, drop the ego. It's embarrassing

Is that your problem? I prefer posts to be coherent and with substance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wow, you continue to fall into the same trap. Generalizations, assumptions, egotistical defensive remarks and representing science in a terrible way.

I find that this particular meme is useable a lot in response to plenty of your projecting statements.

You speak like science designed the car not humans

Humans create cars, using science.

, well who created science?

Humans

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Comparing apples to oranges here I think.

No. Simply pointing out the absurdity of the claim.
You can never "show definitively" that an undetectable force / entity had nothing to do with anything.

What is observable and known is not the same thing as creating life from what has never lived.

Your blatant argument from ignorance is noted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wasn't their lessons, was Darwins that I disproved

The question was how you did it.

We are not expecting any answers though

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can see you all are really in a corner up against such formidable and daunting challenges.

I'm reminded of the saying "It's hard to win an argument against an intelligent person. It's downright impossible to win an argument against the willfully ignorant"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No

No ....but evolution predicts a wide rage of layers in which tiktaalik could have been found .... You obviously know and agree. At this point you are just trolling

So, in other words...
Fishapods like tiktaalik with those predicted traits so far were only found in the predicted strata of the predicted age.

What's your argument again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Criteria? What criteria? You haven't shown any criteria

I have given them multiple times now.
I'm done playing your silly games.

 

[Valjean]

Worked out the details???

Learned more; gained an understanding of the mechanisms involved.

There was a time we didn't understand day vs night, the seasons, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis. We attributed them to divine magic.
Now we've "worked out the details," and God has retreated as a factor. Religious apologists have abandoned these "proofs" and moved on to the current vanguards of science.

 

[leroy]

So, in other words...
Fishapods like tiktaalik with those predicted traits so far were only found in the predicted strata of the predicted age.

What's your argument again?

Given that you keep circumventing my y point I must be making a very good argument