Irony of the evolutionary belief

[It Aint Necessarily So]

According to evolutionists, culture and religion evolve.

That's cultural anthropology, not biology. You don't want to ask a biologist about human culture.

But yes, culture evolves - clothing, language, technology, architecture, art. It's the fifth and latest of the evolutions. First was material evolution, as the universe expanded, cooled, and arranged itself into filaments of galaxies of solar systems comprising the periodic table of elements.

This was followed by chemical evolution, where these elements arranged themselves into life (abiogenesis).

This was followed by the third evolution - the evolution of the primordial population of cells into the tree of life, or so called biological evolution.

Fourth and next was psychological evolution, wherein animals awakened culminating in human intellect (language, symbolic reasoning, mathematics).

And finally, cultural evolution, which appears to be happening only in the sole intellectual species biology generated.

A perverse and wicked generation asks for signs

Do you mean that people look for evidence in order to predict future outcomes? That's what empiricism is, and it is the only path to knowledge about the world. It's what human minds do best.

And are you saying this because you think that this is a perverse and wicked generation, and it should stop looking for signs? Signs of what, exactly? Let's see:

but no sign will be given save that of Jonah

That's very helpful. Let's read more for greater clarity:

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.”

I must have missed the men of Nineveh rising up and condemning us and repenting. Maybe these "signs" aren't all that helpful after all.

I made damning claims against fake theories. I backed my claims with science

You used science to falsify science?

I'm not going to take the kool aid and use your subjective circular reason to discredit the fake theory.

Then go ahead and use whatever more valid form of reasoning you prefer to make your arguments, assuming that there is any substance to your claim. If these are just empty claims and puffery, you shouldn't try, but if you actually have something worthwhile to say, make a cogent, evidenced argument.

Digression: There was a thread a few months back in which one poster was offended at the use of the phrase "drink the Kool-Aid" because he knew somebody who knew somebody who died at Jonestown, and he thought the comment was rude and insensitive. Your usage here reminded me of that. We had to explain to him that many people wouldn't know how he felt, and that he should expect to see the expression from time to time.

He left this link, which some might find interesting: Drinking the Kool-Aid: A Collection of Articles – Alternative Considerations of Jonestown & Peoples Temple

 

[Pogo]

Yes.

Annoying thought just now. @leroy is right that a prediction does not have to follow logically from a hypothesis because a prediction is just a before speak and makes no claims to being logical in and of itself.
That we add the requirement of logical consistency with the hypothesis at hand is really just cultural practice and @leroy is not of our culture.

Now I will go make my first cup of coffee.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Annoying thought just now. @leroy is right that a prediction does not have to follow logically from a hypothesis because a prediction is just a before speak and makes no claims to being logical in and of itself.
That we add the requirement of logical consistency with the hypothesis at hand is really just cultural practice and @leroy is not of our culture.

Now I will go make my first cup of coffee.

Sounds interesting. Can you explain more?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

That's cultural anthropology, not biology. You don't want to ask a biologist about human culture.

But yes, culture evolves - clothing, language, technology, architecture, art. It's the fifth and latest of the evolutions. First was material evolution, as the universe expanded, cooled, and arranged itself into filaments of galaxies of solar systems comprising the periodic table of elements.

This was followed by chemical evolution, where these elements arranged themselves into life (abiogenesis).

This was followed by the third evolution - the evolution of the primordial population of cells into the tree of life, or so called biological evolution.

Fourth and next was psychological evolution, wherein animals awakened culminating in human intellect (language, symbolic reasoning, mathematics).

And finally, cultural evolution, which appears to be happening only in the sole intellectual species biology generated.

Sure, but that’s all very vague and general, and I never see anthropologists lay it all out that way.

I rarely see anthropologists talking like this.

And besides, in our western secular culture, much of science and academics is rejected.

The entire science of anthropology is sometimes shackled with limits that non-anthropologists seek to impose on the science.

 

[Pogo]

What do folks find most ironic about the notion that culture and religion evolves?

I mean, we know that mathematics evolves. And physics? Hell, Quantum Mechanics even has evolution operators.

But somehow, when it comes to religion and culture, an exception is often made.

Why?

Evolution just meaning change over time as the word is used in the above contexts is not the same as evolution in biology where it includes the observations, the theory, the science etc.
You could say a function evolves with time and while poor description it would not be misunderstood that you could not say what the next increment would be.

We need another word but Biologists etc. will claim primogeniture so everybody else needs to find another word for change over time.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Annoying thought just now. @leroy is right that a prediction does not have to follow logically from a hypothesis because a prediction is just a before speak and makes no claims to being logical in and of itself.
That we add the requirement of logical consistency with the hypothesis at hand is really just cultural practice and @leroy is not of our culture.

Now I will go make my first cup of coffee.

I suggest speaking with an anthropologist before adding logical consistency to their work without authorization.

They may be able to point out both examples and counterexamples.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Evolution just meaning change over time as the word is used in the above contexts is not the same as evolution in biology where it includes the observations, the theory, the science etc.
You could say a function evolves with time and while poor description it would not be misunderstood that you could not say what the next increment would be.

We need another word but Biologists etc. will claim primogeniture so everybody else needs to find another word for change over time.

Biologists have lots of words.

Evolution is just one example.

If Biologists don’t like the word, they can use another one, I suppose, but I haven’t seen any actual biologists pushing for that. At least not the ones who used to hang out with the mathematicians every Friday afternoon.

Hell, even neutrinos evolve as they proceed thru time. And they change.

Evolution is about change.

Whether or not neutrinos experience change is a question that physicists look at.

Massless (Muse Neutrino Parody) | A Capella Science​

 

[F1fan]

Added to your list of unsupported claims

Yet we all saw you post a link of a study, and that you misinterpreted what it said.

Added to the list of unsupported claims.

Yet we all saw that you posted links of people trying to argue for why FT is valid, but who weren't experts in science.

You're spiraling down into complete denialism. This has been happening since you were exposed as a creationist, and not someone trying to learn how things are. It's entertaining.

 

[Pogo]

The entire science of anthropology is sometimes shackled with limits that non-anthropologists seek to impose on the science.

Let me rephrase;
The entire y of x is sometimes shackled with limits that non-x seek to impose on y.
For many values of x and y.
Being the marginal mathematician I am, I might even think this is a Lemma.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Let me rephrase;
The entire y of x is sometimes shackled with limits that non-x seek to impose on y.
For many values of x and y.
Being the marginal mathematician I am, I might even think this is a Lemma.

The specifics matter, though.

It’s one thing to prohibit anthropologists from studying morality, and it’s another to prohibit Newtonian physicists from studying morality.

Both have the same syntactical form, but most Newtonian physicists don’t much care about the prohibitions on their subject, since, unlike anthropologists, they rarely have any academic motivations to violate it.

When’s the last time a high school physics class addressed morality?

A high school anthropology class might very well address morality.

That’s a huge difference between anthropology and Newtonian physics.

Work From Home (Physics Version) | A Capella Science​

 

[Pogo]

Sounds interesting. Can you explain more?

Maybe an anecdote will help. I heard a band called die toten hosen on the radio in Hamburg and liked them and even bought a CD. Had several conversations in English about this band called dead pants some eyerolling and some not. Someone even told me that it wasn't dead pants, it was cargo pants. Anyhow why the strange name nobody told me and I thought little of it. Then I thought of this anecdote and then I realized Denmark is a day-trip from Hamburg but Danish is not really close to German.
So anyhow, 25 years later I have been going on about this band the dead pants or cargo pants with many people and in preparing this anecdote I discover that what I think the words mean and what anybody from the local culture would have thought were depending on specifics could be very different.
To me as a poor German speaker from America it was Dead Pants, to the Locals it was Nothing Happens and realizing Danish and German are not as close as my ignorant foreigners mind was thinking. The internet tells me it is the difference between dode bukser and inter sker.

Just because we use the same words we may not have the same understanding due to background and or education.
I know better now, @leroy and others with different "worldviews" are less understanding of this problem shall we say.

PS this auto correct has the problem too, it changed bukser to the English busker. Argh.

 

[Pogo]

The specifics matter, though.

It’s one thing to prohibit anthropologists from studying morality, and it’s another to prohibit Newtonian physicists from studying morality.

Both have the same syntactical form, but most Newtonian physicists don’t much care about the prohibitions on their subject, since, unlike anthropologists, they rarely have any academic motivations to violate it.

When’s the last time a high school physics class addressed morality?

A high school anthropology class might very well address morality.

That’s a huge difference between anthropology and Newtonian physics.

Work From Home (Physics Version) | A Capella Science​

You didn't pick on me for using Lemma but I will ask why you used the word prohibit?
And we did discuss morality in my HS physics class and decided gravity was amoral and not immoral but the class was divided on nuclear physics.

 

[Pogo]

Evolution just meaning change over time as the word is used in the above contexts is not the same as evolution in biology where it includes the observations, the theory, the science etc.
You could say a function evolves with time and while poor description it would not be misunderstood that you could not say what the next increment would be.

We need another word but Biologists etc. will claim primogeniture so everybody else needs to find another word for change over time.

That said Oxford languages says.

early 17th century: from Latin evolutio(n- ) ‘unrolling’, from the verb evolvere (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ maneuver in the realignment of troops or ships. Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense ‘development’.

So the original meaning is closer to meaning that is being coopted into other fields.
So we can all have a gay day thinking about the rolling out of language.

 

[YoursTrue]

Annoying thought just now. @leroy is right that a prediction does not have to follow logically from a hypothesis because a prediction is just a before speak and makes no claims to being logical in and of itself.
That we add the requirement of logical consistency with the hypothesis at hand is really just cultural practice and @leroy is not of our culture.

Now I will go make my first cup of coffee.

I hope it's a good cup of coffee. I think coffee beans need soil in which to grow. And from what I have read so far, life cannot exist without soil. Maybe I'm wrong, though. But enjoy your cup of coffee.

 

[YoursTrue]

That said Oxford languages says.

So the original meaning is closer to meaning that is being coopted into other fields.
So we can all have a gay day thinking about the rolling out of language.

It's actually an entertaining endeavor, but I have so much to do that I can't start now with languages. Although -- so far as I know, gorillas and fish do not have recorded scientific research and conclusions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hope it's a good cup of coffee. I think coffee beans need soil in which to grow. And from what I have read so far, life cannot exist without soil. Maybe I'm wrong, though. But enjoy your cup of coffee.

Yes, wrong again. Some life can live without soil. Most plants cannot.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, wrong again. Some life can live without soil. Most plants cannot.

ok, I'm only going by what I read. "In fact, soils are the nation's – and the world's – breadbasket, providing food and a host of other necessities, including new medicines and materials. No soils, no life. Soils form over hundreds of years but can be destroyed by a single event, such as a hurricane." No soils, no life.
I'll revise my statement to say that human and animal life cannot live without soil. If you disagree, let me know, thank you.

 

[leroy]

If you would write plainly like that, I could understand you. Also, you still haven't explained why you want to make whatever point you're trying to make here. Knowing that would help me understand your words, what they probably mean.

Sure explained in plain English…

Once you make a hypothesis the next step is to make and test predictions.

For example if the hypothesis is that you have a dog, some predictions could be:

1 you buy dog food

2 barking sounds in your house

3 a dog leash in your house

Etc.

These are all predictions that if true………..will make the hypothesis more likely to be true (therefore these predictions are valid)

Any disagreement at this point?

..

The only point that I am making is that these are valid predictions, despite the fact that these predictions don’t *have*to be true in order for the hypothesis to be true.

It is at least logically possible that the predictions are true and the hypothesis false or that the hypothesis is true and the predictions are false. (but these doesn’t invalidate the validity of these predictions)

This is not supposed to be controversial; there are no hidden agendas, the only reason why I made that point is because Tag said the opposite (that predictions must follow)…………. I was not expectgn this mess, my expectation was that Tag would admit that he made a mistake (a typo or something)

 

[YoursTrue]

Also, @Subduction Zone , if you'd like to disagree with the following, please post accordingly, thank you.

5 Reasons We Can’t Live Without Soil

We love to sing the praises of our friends the trees, but we often forget about the critical resource right under our feet: the soil.

www.treepeople.org

 

[leroy]

Yet we all saw you post a link of a study, and that you misinterpreted what it said.

But you haven’t supported that assertion……………what you are expected to do is to quote my words (and the peer reviewed article) and show that I misrepresented something

Yet we all saw that you posted links of people trying to argue for why FT is valid, but who weren't experts in science.

You're spiraling down into complete denialism. This has been happening since you were exposed as a creationist, and not someone trying to learn how things are. It's entertaining.

Well most of my arguments on FT where taken from Luke A. Barnes and Roger Penrose…so your accusation is a lie, because these people are experts in the relevant fields