Working with evolution.

[bobhikes]

My topic is evolution so locked down scientifically that there is no longer room for discussion about possible alternates?

Is evolution perfect without flaws?

Are evolutionists really afraid of creationism and id, which have no proofs of there own and use evolution as a control?

I want to know if I am allow to discuss possible alternates for evolution in the science and technology thread with real interaction and eductation.

 

[Revoltingest]

My topic is evolution so locked down scientifically that there is no longer room for discussion about possible alternates?

There isn't much room, since the alternative always seems to involve magic, which has no appeal for science types.

Is evolution perfect without flaws?

What kind of flaw are you thinking of....A flaw in the theory or flaws in evolutionary adaptation?

Are evolutionists really afraid of creationism and id, which have no proofs of there own and use evolution as a control?

I don't sense fear.....some smugness, rancor & pedantry perhaps....but no fear of ID or creationism.

I want to know if I am allow to discuss possible alternates for evolution in the science and technology thread with real interaction and eductation.

Certainly, you're allowed, but I anticipate that you'll be disrespected frequently.
I shudder at the incivility of some people with whom I agree.

 

[bobhikes]

I like biology especially evolutional theory.

I like to discuss new Idea's along those lines. They are always unique and a lot of times wrong. I like to hear others new Idea's on science even if they are way off base.

With evolution it seems like this back an forth is not aloud. If you don't follow the established path you have to be shut down.

The evolutionists here are concerned a lot about what religion thinks. It is the only science that seems so infactuated with religion. The same people that support ID have problems with astromony. You don't see and Astromony vs creationism thread. I could post on astromony and actually have intelligent discussions.

 

[bobhikes]

There isn't much room, since the alternative always seems to involve magic, which has no appeal for science types.
.

My alternative uses species intelligence as a guide. No magic involved.

 

[Revoltingest]

I like biology especially evolutional theory.

I like to discuss new Idea's along those lines. They are always unique and a lot of times wrong. I like to hear others new Idea's on science even if they are way off base.

With evolution it seems like this back an forth is not aloud. If you don't follow the established path you have to be shut down.

The evolutionists here are concerned a lot about what religion thinks. It is the only science that seems so infactuated with religion. The same people that support ID have problems with astromony. You don't see and Astromony vs creationism thread. I could post on astromony and actually have intelligent discussions.

If you use spell-check, you might find people more charitable.
Some of us are rather pedantic & judgmental.

 

[bobhikes]

If you use spell-check, you might find people more charitable.
Some of us are rather pedantic & judgmental.

A lot of the people are. When I get passionate I tend to not care and spell bad.

Right now I trying to get real feed back on a theory of species intelligence as a guide to evolution.

I can't find any thing on the internet that helps. I need information on the theory of intelligence in evolution. Specifically of Lower animals. The human brain is not all that helpful.

 

[Revoltingest]

The human brain is not all that helpful.

[youtube]MA5Pjw_cZn0[/youtube]
YouTube - Inside Homers head
[youtube]U7p3sSWHplQ[/youtube]
YouTube - Homer's brain

 

[Nepenthe]

I like biology especially evolutional theory.

I like to discuss new Idea's along those lines. They are always unique and a lot of times wrong. I like to hear others new Idea's on science even if they are way off base.

With evolution it seems like this back an forth is not aloud. If you don't follow the established path you have to be shut down.

Who has been shut down?
It seems to me that critiques of evolution are common and the shrillness of the critics is in direct proportion to their rejection of scientific evidence in favor of pious propoganda- particularly in the U.S.

The evolutionists here are concerned a lot about what religion thinks. It is the only science that seems so infactuated with religion.

Well it is a religious education site so this isn't a surprise.

Also, those who study evolution are not infatuated with religion or what religions have to say concerning their discipline, but a minority of fanatical religionists insist on imposing their dogma on the scientific community with nothing even remotely scientific to back them up. To say that science is infatuated with religion is like a stalker claiming the woman he's harrassing is actually the one infatuated with him!

The same people that support ID have problems with astromony.

They do? I didn't realize Behe et al, have written much on astonomy.

You don't see and Astromony vs creationism thread. I could post on astromony and actually have intelligent discussions.

Creationists instigate the attacks on biology, that's why the focus is on biological evolution. But issues of the age of the Earth and flood geology are sometimes brought up as well.

 

[bobhikes]

Who has been shut down?
It seems to me that critiques of evolution are common and the shrillness of the critics is in direct proportion to their rejection of scientific evidence in favor of pious propoganda- particularly in the U.S.


Well it is a religious education site so this isn't a surprise.

Also, those who study evolution are not infatuated with religion or what religions have to say concerning their discipline, but a minority of fanatical religionists insist on imposing their dogma on the scientific community with nothing even remotely scientific to back them up. To say that science is infatuated with religion is like a stalker claiming the woman he's harrassing is actually the one infatuated with him!

They do? I didn't realize Behe et al, have written much on astonomy.
Creationists instigate the attacks on biology, that's why the focus is on biological evolution. But issues of the age of the Earth and flood geology are sometimes brought up as well.

Are you interested in criticing the topic of species intelligence as a guide to evolution.

Can you offer information on the evolution of intelligence, especially concerning lower animals?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Remember, it is those researchers critical of scientific status quo that make the most progress. Even when they are wrong they help to advance knowledge.

(And I am talking about actual scientific research, not Creationists who dismiss empirical evidence simply because it conflicts with their preconceived theology)

 

[Magic Man]

My topic is evolution so locked down scientifically that there is no longer room for discussion about possible alternates?

No, it is not. There is plenty of room for discussion, which is why it's still being discussed. But there are several facts involved that aren't really disputable. The theory is without question very accurate in most ways. That's not going to change. There are some details that might still be unknown or possibly incorrect. It has changed since Darwin gave it to us, but it's still basically the same.

Is evolution perfect without flaws?

It depends on what you mean. The theory could change a bit over time still, but the basics are not going to.

Are evolutionists really afraid of creationism and id, which have no proofs of there own and use evolution as a control?

I wouldn't say "afraid", but I also wouldn't say "evolutionist". I'd say they might be concerned with the results of teaching creationism on a large scale.

I want to know if I am allow to discuss possible alternates for evolution in the science and technology thread with real interaction and eductation.

You can talk about anything you want. If it's not science, and you're talking about it in a science setting, you're not going to get a good response. There are no scientific alternatives to evolution.

 

[Nepenthe]

No, it is not. There is plenty of room for discussion, which is why it's still being discussed. But there are several facts involved that aren't really disputable. The theory is without question very accurate in most ways. That's not going to change. There are some details that might still be unknown or possibly incorrect. It has changed since Darwin gave it to us, but it's still basically the same.



It depends on what you mean. The theory could change a bit over time still, but the basics are not going to.



I wouldn't say "afraid", but I also wouldn't say "evolutionist". I'd say they might be concerned with the results of teaching creationism on a large scale.



You can talk about anything you want. If it's not science, and you're talking about it in a science setting, you're not going to get a good response. There are no scientific alternatives to evolution.

Exactly. :yes:
The theory that the alteration of alleles in populations creates an inheritable variation from generation to generation is indisputable. A viable alternative to biological evolution has yet to be presented and the evidence for evolution is as solid as a science can be. But there is discussion over the precise mechanisms that act on this inheritable variation. From rates of natural selection like Gould and Lewontin's Punk-eek to (my favorite) Stuart Kaufmann's self organization to issues surrounding how some hominins should be classified, etc.- there's certainly a rich field of debate within the details.

 

[Autodidact]

My topic is evolution so locked down scientifically that there is no longer room for discussion about possible alternates?

As much as any consensus theory in modern science, such as gravity, heliocentrism, or germs. That is, about 99.9%.

Is evolution perfect without flaws?

If you mean the Theory of Evolution, (ToE), then no, it's science, and all scientific knowledge is constantly being improved.

Are evolutionists really afraid of creationism and id, which have no proofs of there own and use evolution as a control?

We're afraid of ignorance and anti-science forces. At least, I am.

I want to know if I am allow to discuss possible alternates for evolution in the science and technology thread with real interaction and eductation.

Of course. What alternative did you want to propose, Magic Poofing? Or something scientific?

 

[Autodidact]

I like biology especially evolutional theory.

I like to discuss new Idea's along those lines. They are always unique and a lot of times wrong. I like to hear others new Idea's on science even if they are way off base.

With evolution it seems like this back an forth is not aloud. If you don't follow the established path you have to be shut down.

The evolutionists here are concerned a lot about what religion thinks. It is the only science that seems so infactuated with religion. The same people that support ID have problems with astromony. You don't see and Astromony vs creationism thread. I could post on astromony and actually have intelligent discussions.

Now try to imagine why this is. Are creationists trying to impact what is taught in astronomy class? Are they trying to re-write astronomy books to include "placed in the heavens for a sign" theory? Do you see creationists on the internet starting threads arguing against heliocentrism?

I don't know why creationists are fixated on Biology. If you're a true YEC, it seems to me your biggest problem is geology, not Biology, but that doesn't seem to interest them much. Maybe they haven't heard of it.

 

[Autodidact]

My alternative uses species intelligence as a guide. No magic involved.

What is "species intelligence?" btw, do you think you have a good grasp on what ToE actually says?

 

[Nepenthe]

Are you interested in criticing the topic of species intelligence as a guide to evolution.

Can you offer information on the evolution of intelligence, especially concerning lower animals?

Sorry, just saw this.
I saw your thread but it's hard to comment on a question I can't fully interpret. :sorry1:

 

[Autodidact]

Are you interested in criticing the topic of species intelligence as a guide to evolution.

Can you offer information on the evolution of intelligence, especially concerning lower animals?

I think a clearer, easier way for you to explore this idea would be to study the evolution of the brain. There are probably a million articles on the subject. It's extremely complex and fascinating. But again, I really think to make any progress in Biology, the first step is to learn what ToE says in general, since this is the basis of all modern Biology.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think a clearer, easier way for you to explore this idea would be to study the evolution of the brain. There are probably a million articles on the subject. It's extremely complex and fascinating. But again, I really think to make any progress in Biology, the first step is to learn what ToE says in general, since this is the basis of all modern Biology.

I think that it depends on the level of study. When we get into the world of ToE and biology, we enter into a type of "hermeneutical circle" and it doesn't matter where you start.... eventually you're going to come full circle in the relationship between the subjects and their intepretations. That is to say - evolution will become evident from a study of biology, and biology can only make sense through evolution.

Just don't mention creationism and all is well.

 

[Autodidact]

Here are some books that might help, bob. I think you'll find it rather challenging:
Brain Evolution
Origin of Mind
Evolution of the Neocortex from Early Mammals to Modern Humans, The

 

[bobhikes]

Now try to imagine why this is. Are creationists trying to impact what is taught in astronomy class? Are they trying to re-write astronomy books to include "placed in the heavens for a sign" theory? Do you see creationists on the internet starting threads arguing against heliocentrism?

I don't know why creationists are fixated on Biology. If you're a true YEC, it seems to me your biggest problem is geology, not Biology, but that doesn't seem to interest them much. Maybe they haven't heard of it.

Creationists have been shutdown in the US everytime they have tried to invade the public domain. They do not and will not teach creationism in public schools until they act like scientists. So it will never happen