Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

generalgrog wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

What does this mean?

GG

It means the "nothing really matters, it is all, like, totally perception dude" is a tired and weak argument.

Yeah, well that's just like, your opinion man.

generalgrog wrote:
the point is.. there is controversy in classification of which ones are humans or apes....so if you experiment DNA from the human one than yeah it's going to match.

Human is not a taxonomic classification, and nether is ape.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens is one member of the taxonomic family Hominidae, which is often referred to colloquially as "the great apes". Other members of the family include Pan Troglodytes (Chimpanzees) and Gorilla Gorilla.

All members of this family have significant genetic commonality. The common example being that Chimpanzees have DNA that is a roughly 95% match for moderns humans.

It doesn't make sense to argue that one might observe genetic commonality in something that may or may not be classified in the genus Homo, because not only is the specific classification irrelevant to genetic commonality (taxonomy is a descriptive tool, not an inherent characteristic), but there will be high commonality across the board to begin with.

You're basically arguing this backwards. If we find an animal that is not genetically identical to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, but is very closely related, then where we place it in the taxonomic listing has no bearing on the fact that we're observing a transitional form. On the contrary, we would place more closely associated creatures closer to Homo Sapiens Sapiens for the very fact that they have been shown to be closely related to modern humans.

You need to stop thinking in terms of biblical archetypes, because they really have no bearing on the way scientific classification is done.

dogma wrote:
You need to stop thinking in terms of biblical archetypes........

No

GG

Then you will continue to misunderstand what is being said with respect to any discussion of taxonomy or evolution.

dogma wrote:Then you will continue to misunderstand what is being said with respect to any discussion of taxonomy or evolution.

dogma I don't misunderstand a thing. I am completely aware of what cladistics are..I just happen to disagree with some of the tenets of it.

now back to more Dave Brubek...no on second thoight I'm going to go for some Benson now.

GG

generalgrog wrote:dogma I don't misunderstand a thing. I am completely aware of what cladistics are..I just happen to disagree with some of the tenets of it.

If that's the case, then why are you positing that we can ignore genetic commonality with respect to "humans" and "apes" when the original comment dealt with hominids?

Hominidae encompasses both "humans" and "apes", so it makes no sense to say that an observed similarity is unimportant because the thing in question may be "human" when the things being observed are hominids. You would expect similarity regardless of what genus the sample were a member of, and that similarity would be relevant to classification with respect to genus, not with respect to family. Your objection, which I assume was intended to refute the idea that the genus Homo possesses an ancestor that is common with the other hominid genera, is not reasonable

Someone who understood cladistics wouldn't make such a point.

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:
You need to stop thinking in terms of biblical archetypes........

No

GG

And that is the problem. The assumption that a book that is well over a thousand years old has better answers than the modern world can come up with.

GG, You still haven't answered to the fact that Speciation has happened, with a single interbreeding group of Cichlid fish turning into hundreds of non-interbreeding species, with radically different physical and behavioural characteristics in just 15,000 years. As pointed out, interbreeding is what defines a species. It is what macro-evolution is. If you can get that much speciation in 15,000 years, plus the wide variety of characteristics, what do you imagine can happen in 15,000 x 15,000 years? 225,000,000 is 225 million years, and is not even the complete amount of time over which evolution is "theorised" to have been happening.

But, sadly, it seems you would prefer to argue against logic and evidence so as to be able to keep thinking inside the bible-box.

Well, ultimately I think the issue is that there is a disconnect between what constitutes a better explanation, and what constitutes a preferred explanation.

Most of the creationists that I know consider creationist explanations to be superior because they account for the Biblical creation story. Because the Bible is a description of events, and not the events themselves, any explanation that accounts for it is preferable (to anyone that cares about the Bible in that sense), but not superior.

The best creationists, the ones that do real science, understand and admit this. Very few others do.

dogma wrote:Well, ultimately I think the issue is that there is a disconnect between what constitutes a better explanation, and what constitutes a preferred explanation.

Most of the creationists that I know consider creationist explanations to be superior because they account for the Biblical creation story. Because the Bible is a description of events, and not the events themselves, any explanation that accounts for it is preferable (to anyone that cares about the Bible in that sense), but not superior.

The best creationists, the ones that do real science, understand and admit this. Very few others do.

Yeah, good point. I remember in the last one of these threads GG gave the names of some scientists who were highly acclaimed but were also creationists. Intrigued I looked up his Australian example, and sure enough the guy was a highly regarded in biology and he didn't believe evolution was a sufficient example. I wasn't completely sure what to make of this and posted that in a reply to GG. Unfortunately dakka, which was giving me all kinds of technical grief at the time, ate my post and I don't think it ever appeared on the thread. I didn't post on dakka for a few days after that, by which time the thread had died or been locked or something so I let it go.

I've been thinking about it since, and what the scientist involved had said. Thing is, he didn't have any actual scientific arguments against evolution (apart from an argument about information arising from nothing, which is a flaky argument at best). Instead, his honest argument was that he felt the Bible to be true, and for it to be impossible to believe both the bible and the standard version of evolution, and he chose the Bible.

Your argument above about the difference between the best and the prefered explanation helped me put my thoughts on the matter together. Thing is, the guy is producing well regarded science, so ultimately I think the guy well and truly fits inside the scope of life's rich pageant - it is not only alright that he believes as he does, it is absolutely a good thing to have such diversity of opinion.

Really, I think these kinds of issues only become a problem when it leads to people becoming hostile towards science, or when it used to shut down teaching.

Ahtman wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

What does this mean?

GG

It means the "nothing really matters, it is all, like, totally perception dude" is a tired and weak argument.

The search for the truth is important, and if that is what you meant, then I'll agree with that. We cannot give up the search for clarity and a better understanding of the hows and whys, however it is a gross egotistical fallacy to think that we have achieved that in any circle of knowledge...







...dude

There's no such thing as an egotistical fallacy.

We have exhaustive knowledge of many things. Addition is a good example.

Also, the egotism behind the claim "We have exhaustive knowledge of nothing." is the same as the one behind the claim "We have exhaustive knowledge of everything."

Note my signature.

dogma wrote:We have exhaustive knowledge of many things. Addition is a good example.

And yet the mathematical proofs for even the most simple number manipulation is well beyong most people. Kind of surprising when you add 2+2 together to get 4 that there is a whole, vast supporting framework of maths which proves that when you add 2+2 you do indeed get 4.

In the same way, we can observe that "dead creature A" and "dead creature B" look like they are leading towards "living creature C" and indeed it might make a lot of sense that this is the case - however, we have not quite pinned down the fundamental theories and proofs that lay behind these observations and deductions.

You can get through life without knowing how and why 2+2=4 and simply rely on 2+2=4, but if someone comes along and says that 2+2=1, or 2+2 has no answer and indeed "2" and "2" are in no way related and cannot be linked in any way, you will have a lot of trouble explaining to them that this is not the case.

And if you do have the mathematical proofs behind it, most people will not be able to understand and follow it anyway...

generalgrog wrote:
No

GG

This proves why you'll never be convinced. To you there is some kind of magical barrier between humans and other animals that makes humans uberspecial, we were made in the image of God or something like that.

Therefore, a homind must either be a human or an ape....but as dogma has explained in depth, there is no such scientific distinction. Humans are just a specific, and extremely prolific species of primate, who so happens to have a major effect on our environment. Beyond that, there's nothing seperating us. No soul, no nothing in a scientific standpoint....

[rant]

By the way, since your refusing to accept that the binomial system is fair for species classification, and that we should use 'kinds' and 'biblical archetypes' would you care to start creating the system right now? What are the kinds? Are there kinds of bacteria? OH and here's something creationists should be able to answer easily: is a virus alive? Do tell! Let us turn to Ye Olde Fictional Book of Abrahamic Fairy Tales for all our answers! Science is clearly wrong, but a guy writing a book in a cave 2000 years ago, that was then PUT into a bigger book by some convention 1000 years ago? THAT is the WORD OF GOD and completely infallible and perfect.

[/rant]

SilverMK2 wrote:
In the same way, we can observe that "dead creature A" and "dead creature B" look like they are leading towards "living creature C" and indeed it might make a lot of sense that this is the case - however, we have not quite pinned down the fundamental theories and proofs that lay behind these observations and deductions.

Sure, and that makes math a precursor to most sciences. Math is great fun because it is essentially definitive of itself. It doesn't have to worry about agreement with observation so much as agreement with properties previously assumed.

SilverMK2 wrote:
And if you do have the mathematical proofs behind it, most people will not be able to understand and follow it anyway...

They don't have to. Well, unless they plan on killing me because I understand that 2 is 2 in all cases, and that it equals 4 when added to itself.

"Average people are average" is one of the best axioms that any professor has ever imparted to me.

dogma wrote:Sure, and that makes math a precursor to most sciences. Math is great fun because it is essentially definitive of itself. It doesn't have to worry about agreement with observation so much as agreement with properties previously assumed.

Plus, if my several maths lecturers at university were representative of the whole, you get to wear truely terrible knitted jumpers while practicing the dark arts of number manipulation.

dogma wrote:They don't have to. Well, unless they plan on killing me because I understand that 2 is 2 in all cases, and that it equals 4 when added to itself.

"Average people are average" is one of the best axioms that any professor has ever imparted to me.

The point I was trying to make was that even when presented with the proof of something, some will argue that because they do not understand it that it is not true. Although I agree that the axiom presented above is very apt.

SilverMK2 wrote:The point I was trying to make was that even when presented with the proof of something, some will argue that because they do not understand it that it is not true. Although I agree that the axiom presented above is very apt.

Fortunately human knowledge isn't dependant on how much of it is understood by the average person. If that were true none of our cars would work.

asimo77 wrote:


In other words you just can't comprehend my arsesome finite mind

Corrected for veracity

SilverMK2 wrote:
Plus, if my several maths lecturers at university were representative of the whole, you get to wear truely terrible knitted jumpers while practicing the dark arts of number manipulation.

There is a terribly high correlation between mathematicians and poor fashion sense.

SilverMK2 wrote:
The point I was trying to make was that even when presented with the proof of something, some will argue that because they do not understand it that it is not true. Although I agree that the axiom presented above is very apt.

Ah, ok, yes I agree.

sebster wrote:Fortunately human knowledge isn't dependant on how much of it is understood by the average person. If that were true none of our cars would work.

Clearly you have never driven a Land Rover

dogma wrote:There's no such thing as an egotistical fallacy.

We have exhaustive knowledge of many things. Addition is a good example.

Also, the egotism behind the claim "We have exhaustive knowledge of nothing." is the same as the one behind the claim "We have exhaustive knowledge of everything."

Note my signature.

A fallacy as a result of egotism if that makes more sense, although you get the intent.

And I'm not saying we have exhaustive knowledge of nothing. I'm saying we have no way of truely proving what knowledge we have. We place faith in a given theory or law based on the probability that it is correct. That probability is never 100% though.

Maelstrom808 wrote:We place faith in a given theory or law based on the probability that it is correct. That probability is never 100% though.

That isn't true of things like "2+2=4".

I knew that was going to be your example

Something like mathematics is not what I really mean, and as soon as I posted, I knew that was going to bite me if I didn't find a way to qualify what I am talking about.

You are right, we have extensive knowledge of mathematics and can easily prove how it works. Another example would be language. They are logical systems of our own creation. In the physical world however, if you take one apple, that apple may actually be one apple and 16 apples at the same time, or an infinite number of apples depending on which multitude of theories you subscribe to. The logical system still exists and is true, but in practical application it can break down.

Alright, that makes more sense, and I agree.

dogma wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:
In the same way, we can observe that "dead creature A" and "dead creature B" look like they are leading towards "living creature C" and indeed it might make a lot of sense that this is the case - however, we have not quite pinned down the fundamental theories and proofs that lay behind these observations and deductions.

Sure, and that makes math a precursor to most sciences. Math is great fun because it is essentially definitive of itself. It doesn't have to worry about agreement with observation so much as agreement with properties previously assumed.

SilverMK2 wrote:
And if you do have the mathematical proofs behind it, most people will not be able to understand and follow it anyway...

They don't have to. Well, unless they plan on killing me because I understand that 2 is 2 in all cases, and that it equals 4 when added to itself.

"Average people are average" is one of the best axioms that any professor has ever imparted to me.

Two amusing factoids.

1. Most people believe they are above average. This is because people with low cognitive skills do not possess the cognitive skills necessary to fully appraise their poor cognitive skills.

2. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems may show that it cannot be proven that 2+2=4, however this is not fully accepted by mathematicians, and depends on arguments about first and second order logic which I do not understand.

Kilkrazy wrote:Two amusing factoids.

1. Most people believe they are above average. This is because people with low cognitive skills do not possess the cognitive skills necessary to fully appraise their poor cognitive skills.

2. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems may show that it cannot be proven that 2+2=4, however this is not fully accepted by mathematicians, and depends on arguments about first and second order logic which I do not understand.

Also, has your avatar grown a 'tash? I've never noticed it before if not...

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:It doesn't even matter if it's correct or not.

I disagree. The truth matters. Whether or not something is used for theological argument beyond its intention is irrelevant, but the truth still matters.

Philosophically, sure. but science is about utility.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:It doesn't matter if anybody believes in evolution or not.

It doesn't even matter if it's correct or not.

It doesn't matter from a rhetorical point of view, true, the 'winning' theory will be the one that best explains things. But from the point of view of science how well a theory matches what we know really does matter, it matters a whole lot.

At one point in time the best explanation for the solar system was that the Sun orbited the Earth. It mattered that this theory couldn't make useful predictions.

Fortunately evolution makes all kinds of useful predictions.

I dont' think that's true. The Babylonians could predict eclipses and use the lunar cycle to plan agriculture. Heliocentrism can make more correct predictions, which is why it eventually became the dominant theory, but aside from some difficulties in explaining things like mars's retrograde motion, geo-centrism actually worked pretty well as a theory.

It's not like there was no useful biology done before evolution became accepted, or any useful geology before plate techtonics. There is just more and better work being done now with them.

Polonius wrote:I dont' think that's true. The Babylonians could predict eclipses and use the lunar cycle to plan agriculture. Heliocentrism can make more correct predictions, which is why it eventually became the dominant theory, but aside from some difficulties in explaining things like mars's retrograde motion, geo-centrism actually worked pretty well as a theory.

That's more or less what I said, when the level of understanding was limited geocentrism was the best explanation, but that didn't make it a particularly good model. Heliocentrism took it's place when it became the better model, but what's important isn't really that it's a better model, what really matters is that it's a good model, and one that continued to fit with new information as we discovered it.

It's not like there was no useful biology done before evolution became accepted, or any useful geology before plate techtonics. There is just more and better work being done now with them.

Sure, there is more and better work done without them. Thing is, when a model can be used to predict things, and be pretty decently accurate in those predictions, then the model isn't just better than the one that came before, it's a good model. As such, evolution isn't just the best model we have, it's a very good one.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:It doesn't even matter if it's correct or not.

I disagree. The truth matters. Whether or not something is used for theological argument beyond its intention is irrelevant, but the truth still matters.

Well when you break it all down, everything is just working theories. There really is no absolute truth in anything, just variable degrees of probability and faith.

Everything we know about reality is theory.

The term "just theory" comes from a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is.

Was this thread neccesary? And why wasn't it closed when the OP's intentions were revealed?


You make me sad, dakka.