|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 10/22/2007 : 14:07:45 [Permalink]
|
perrodetokio said
| Yeah, HH! I´ve seen the lochness monster, made friends with it and rode on its back... PROVE ME WRONG! |
Wow, you apparently read the post but clearly did not understand it at all. I suggest you reread what HH wrote!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 14:18:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
I considered it evidence of evolution happening when I thought it was functionless, because there would be no need for a creator or designer to include such aspects if it was functionless, but then I found out that they aren't functionless and most probably have their own purpose. |
In that case, you had the science wrong. Your understanding - that vestigal organs were evidence for evolution if functionless - was incorrect. Vestigal organs were never evidence for evolution because they were allegedly functionless. Vestigal organs are evidence for evolution because the theory predicts that they'll exist (mere existence, regardless of co-opted function or not). And ERVs are evidence for evolution regardless of any function they might have, because evolutionary theory predicts that any genetic insertions should follow the same nested hierarchy as we find morphologically. Finding functions for vestigal organs and ERVs does nothing to change their status as evidence in favor of evolution.
Especially when you figure that "God works in mysterious ways," and so there's no reason to dismiss an apparently functionless organ as something not designed by God. Who the heck are you to say how God would design? Hubris is a sin.| And also, I am a violinist, but I don't restrict myself to just one instrument. I played the violin earlier, so now I play the flute, no problem with that right? |
If you say you're a violinist and (as it appears) you wish to demonstrate your violin skills, playing the flute will only confuse. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 16:38:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
I am very well aware that God's existence can not be disproved, however if you question a specific religion you can simply look at their doctrine. Does it grossly conflict with science? Do the adherents ignore this? Who were the original people? Can they truly be trustworthy... etc... etc... |
This is slightly off topic, but the sentences quoted above jumped out at me.
Why should any religious doctrine be judged on it's degree of conflict with science? The gods of most religions are exempt from mundane physical laws, why should there doctrines be any more compliant?
Also, what does the subjective evaluations of the religious adherents themselves have to do with underlying religion, when it's quite likely their god(s) are givng them bad information to start with, as some sort of test, or that the adherents were simply born with some built-in flaw for some other reason.
If you truly believe you have some truly objective methodology for evaluating the relative merit of religions, there are a lot of people that would like to hear it, myself included.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 17:04:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Though I will admit, the furthest you can get from indoctrination is by utilising the scientific method, because science is constantly expanding and one must remain open to new possibilities. Though it does tend to make one really close-minded to the supernatural side of things. |
Science, doesn't, and can't explain the supernatural because, pretty much by definition, the supernatural is super-natural, and science is a tool for understanding what is natural.
Science often explains phenomena that were once thought to be supernatural, but that's a very different kettle of coelacanth.
You can posit the existence of supernatural things, sure, but expecting science to deal with them, and have them remain supernatural, is pretty much futile.
I agree that a scientific outlook tends to make one close-minded to the supernatural, as long as you don't extend close-minded all the way to denial. I admit I don't spend much time thinking about the existence of fairies. I don't absolutely deny their existence. However, to the best of my knowledge, there's no good reason to believe they do, and not much benefit in believing the same. Most people don't have much opposition to that position.
When you change the analogy to include supernatural beliefs people are fond of, attitudes typically change somewhat seriously. In terms of scientific validity, I've honestly no reason to believe that any religion I've come across is any more valid than tree sprites or numerology.
The existence (irrespective of truth value) of religion, certainly has many more implications for people and the societies they live in, but that's an entirely different discussion, and I may already have taken this too far off the rails.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 10/22/2007 17:05:38 |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 23:23:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
In that case, you had the science wrong. Your understanding - that vestigal organs were evidence for evolution if functionless - was incorrect. Vestigal organs were never evidence for evolution because they were allegedly functionless. Vestigal organs are evidence for evolution because the theory predicts that they'll exist (mere existence, regardless of co-opted function or not). And ERVs are evidence for evolution regardless of any function they might have, because evolutionary theory predicts that any genetic insertions should follow the same nested hierarchy as we find morphologically. Finding functions for vestigal organs and ERVs does nothing to change their status as evidence in favor of evolution. |
Well this is where you have to understand that some people actually believe in a theistic evolution. I do not, for I believe that would be trimming on the lines of Ad Hoc, however, when I first heard of vestigiality and ERVs I did consider it.
They are still evidence for evolution without a doubt. I just remain skeptical and don't believe evolution happened at all, but I still remain open-minded if you know what I mean.
For example you can have evidence against someone in a court of law, yet he is still innocent. I know courts work very differently than real science, but it is true.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Especially when you figure that "God works in mysterious ways," and so there's no reason to dismiss an apparently functionless organ as something not designed by God. Who the heck are you to say how God would design? Hubris is a sin. |
God works in mysterious ways?
I don't think I said that. I was only given a reason for believing in a theistic evolution. Not god's non-existence.
Originally posted by Dave W.
If you say you're a violinist and (as it appears) you wish to demonstrate your violin skills, playing the flute will only confuse. |
True, but then this is a thread which requires me to play the flute at necessary intervals, because these melodies have never been played on a violin. |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 23:31:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnOAS
This is slightly off topic, but the sentences quoted above jumped out at me.
Why should any religious doctrine be judged on it's degree of conflict with science? The gods of most religions are exempt from mundane physical laws, why should there doctrines be any more compliant?
Also, what does the subjective evaluations of the religious adherents themselves have to do with underlying religion, when it's quite likely their god(s) are givng them bad information to start with, as some sort of test, or that the adherents were simply born with some built-in flaw for some other reason.
If you truly believe you have some truly objective methodology for evaluating the relative merit of religions, there are a lot of people that would like to hear it, myself included.
|
Well if the doctrine does have mistakes in it (including intentional ones) then we won't be able to tell between the mistakes and the non-mistakes and therefore science and research would be much more reliable that their actual religion and all the members of that religion would have to admit that.
I thought this was a good website for the issue, maybe it'll clear up some of your questions.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Though I will admit, the furthest you can get from indoctrination is by utilising the scientific method, because science is constantly expanding and one must remain open to new possibilities. Though it does tend to make one really close-minded to the supernatural side of things. |
Science, doesn't, and can't explain the supernatural because, pretty much by definition, the supernatural is super-natural, and science is a tool for understanding what is natural.
Science often explains phenomena that were once thought to be supernatural, but that's a very different kettle of coelacanth.
You can posit the existence of supernatural things, sure, but expecting science to deal with them, and have them remain supernatural, is pretty much futile.
I agree that a scientific outlook tends to make one close-minded to the supernatural, as long as you don't extend close-minded all the way to denial. I admit I don't spend much time thinking about the existence of fairies. I don't absolutely deny their existence. However, to the best of my knowledge, there's no good reason to believe they do, and not much benefit in believing the same. Most people don't have much opposition to that position.
When you change the analogy to include supernatural beliefs people are fond of, attitudes typically change somewhat seriously. In terms of scientific validity, I've honestly no reason to believe that any religion I've come across is any more valid than tree sprites or numerology.
The existence (irrespective of truth value) of religion, certainly has many more implications for people and the societies they live in, but that's an entirely different discussion, and I may already have taken this too far off the rails. |
But as you said, some of the supernatural may actually be explained but we just haven't found out the secrets to it once. You know people once believed that children looked like their parents because god made them so and then genetics came along and showed that there was nothing supernatural about it at all.
However there are some subjects of the supernatural that one shouldn't research. I hear that when you do, you either go insane or get really sick I know 3 people that did try to do research and later went completely insane. Of course there could have been something else in the equation that made them lose it, but this happens often so I tend to believe it has something to do with why it is not a part of science. |
| Edited by - Coelacanth on 10/22/2007 23:41:16 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 00:21:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
However there are some subjects of the supernatural that one shouldn't research. I hear that when you do, you either go insane or get really sick I know 3 people that did try to do research and later went completely insane. Of course there could have been something else in the equation that made them lose it, but this happens often so I tend to believe it has something to do with why it is not a part of science.
|
Oh, please do tell. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 00:48:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
However there are some subjects of the supernatural that one shouldn't research. I hear that when you do, you either go insane or get really sick I know 3 people that did try to do research and later went completely insane. Of course there could have been something else in the equation that made them lose it, but this happens often so I tend to believe it has something to do with why it is not a part of science. |
I think that for some, going insane is a matter of local transportation. Getting into the arcane is a self-selecting activity that tends to attract the wackos, IMO. Like voodoo curses that may actually kill people, credulity can have a profound psychological and psychosomatic impact on people, particularly people who may be put together with untightened screws and nuts.
This speaks much more to the nature of the "initiate" than to any objective reality of the spiritual field.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/23/2007 00:49:52 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2007 : 02:52:33 [Permalink]
|
| As for the useless ones, it really depends. I've yet to be shown one completely useless structure, yet there are supposed to be some. I've read on a few, but they seemed like baseless speculation on something which was entirely questionable in the first place. |
Eye reminants of cave fish, crustations and amphibians
Eye reminants in some burrowing animals such as moles
Mouth parts of non-feeding flat worms
Mouth parts of non-feeding mayflies & other insects
Our coccyx
Male nipples
Foetal teeth in baleen whales
Foetal teeth in anteaters
Whale's pelvic girdle
Manatee toenails
The degenerate second lung in serpents
The degenerate duvernoy's organs in constricting serpents
And so forth
The woods are full of 'em, these rather pathetic left-overs of evolution.
Science never 'proves' anything. All science does is compile evidence, pro or con on any given subject. That is why evolution is a 'theory' rather than being called the stone fact that it is. Science always leaves it open-ended because there is always the possibility, however remote, that some new evidence might come along to change or even refute it.
As far as science is concerned, 'proof' only counts in mathmatics & whiskey, so let us have a dram or two and speak no more of this proof silliness. No scientific theory will ever be proven.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2007 : 03:55:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Male nipples |
Is that really an example of a vestigal organ?
Males have nipples because their female offspring need them.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 06:22:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Starman
Originally posted by filthy
Male nipples |
Is that really an example of a vestigal organ?
Males have nipples because their female offspring need them.
|
Oh, pickey-pickey-pickey!
I look at it this way: If evolution was so damned smart, it would have found a way to let the females nurse without encumbering the males with that which is only suitable for piercings on/in people who like odd jewelry.
<shrug> I threw it in because, like a Republican politician, it was cheap & available.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 12:55:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Well this is where you have to understand that some people actually believe in a theistic evolution. I do not, for I believe that would be trimming on the lines of Ad Hoc, however, when I first heard of vestigiality and ERVs I did consider it. |
Well, anything not based on evidence is pretty much ad hoc, including Genesis.| They are still evidence for evolution without a doubt. |
Excellent.| I just remain skeptical and don't believe evolution happened at all, but I still remain open-minded if you know what I mean. |
Well, I don't believe evolution happened, either. I mean, we can see it occuring now, there's no reason to think that it didn't happen in the past (in fact, there's a tremendous mound of evidence that it did), and the only thing I need to "believe" is that there exists an objective reality that we can measure and test and I'm a part of it.| For example you can have evidence against someone in a court of law, yet he is still innocent. I know courts work very differently than real science, but it is true. |
Sure, scientists are wrong sometimes, as is everyone else. Nature isn't, though.God works in mysterious ways?
I don't think I said that. I was only given a reason for believing in a theistic evolution. Not god's non-existence. |
You didn't say that, and I wasn't discussing God's non-existence. I was telling you why, even with a completely functionless vestigal organ, there's no reason to think that God did not create it. Only someone who thinks he knows better than God would assume that any particular feature found in nature could not be of Divine origin.| True, but then this is a thread which requires me to play the flute at necessary intervals, because these melodies have never been played on a violin. |
If complex symphonic compositions can be re-arranged for appropriate performance by twenty guys with kazoos, flute-to-violin translations ought to be a snap, even on the fly. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 14:17:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I think that for some, going insane is a matter of local transportation. Getting into the arcane is a self-selecting activity that tends to attract the wackos, IMO. Like voodoo curses that may actually kill people, credulity can have a profound psychological and psychosomatic impact on people, particularly people who may be put together with untightened screws and nuts.
This speaks much more to the nature of the "initiate" than to any objective reality of the spiritual field. |
Reminds me of what my grandfather used to say, it can't harm you unless you think it can... he meant it on a different level, but it still applies.
Ironically enough it was my other grandfather that went insane researching the thing. People say he was very intelligent, but it's common knowledge where I'm from that those are the effects of delving into matters that don't concern us. Superstition? maybe, but I can't help but notice the pattern.
Originally posted by filthy
| As for the useless ones, it really depends. I've yet to be shown one completely useless structure, yet there are supposed to be some. I've read on a few, but they seemed like baseless speculation on something which was entirely questionable in the first place. |
Eye reminants of cave fish, crustations and amphibians
Eye reminants in some burrowing animals such as moles
Mouth parts of non-feeding flat worms
Mouth parts of non-feeding mayflies & other insects
Our coccyx
Male nipples
Foetal teeth in baleen whales
Foetal teeth in anteaters
Whale's pelvic girdle
Manatee toenails
The degenerate second lung in serpents
The degenerate duvernoy's organs in constricting serpents
And so forth
The woods are full of 'em, these rather pathetic left-overs of evolution.
Science never 'proves' anything. All science does is compile evidence, pro or con on any given subject. That is why evolution is a 'theory' rather than being called the stone fact that it is. Science always leaves it open-ended because there is always the possibility, however remote, that some new evidence might come along to change or even refute it.
As far as science is concerned, 'proof' only counts in mathmatics & whiskey, so let us have a dram or two and speak no more of this proof silliness. No scientific theory will ever be proven. |
No... science doesn't prove anything, but giving this thread. Evolution seems to be quite "proven" in the minds of some people. I was referring to it being proven to me and others. Not it actually being proven. If we don't talk about proof, we won't get anywhere. We can only speak of "proof" even if the theory is not "proven". Don't be silly now.
And as for your vestigial structures you posted, I can see you have either very little knowledge of these particular structures or perhaps you missed the point.
I don't have much time, but here's a few inconsitencies.
1. Mole eyes (can't be sure of cave fish) are important to the creature. An experiment was carried out where they removed the eyes and it had some detrimental effects on the creature. Scientists have come to the conclusion that they are indeed functionable and capable of perceiving light, just not as well as ours. They don't really need it, they live underground mostly. These experiments were carried out on the supposed completely blind "Mole-Rat"
2. The coccyx is very important too, it is the attachment for nine different muscles including the gluteous maximus (The buttocks), it also helps us greatly to be able to sit properly in it's supporting of the pelvis.
3. The male nipple isn't vestigial at all. Vestigially is homologous structures that previously provided a function and do no longer provide that or do less. The male nipple has never provided a feature... One could say it was just a product of design or you could say it was what others have put forward in this thread. In no way are male nipples vestigial.
Those are good examples how being uninformed can misguide you filthy, be careful what you claim.
I'm in a rush now, toodles... |
| Edited by - Coelacanth on 10/23/2007 14:27:06 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 15:08:41 [Permalink]
|
 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger
Topic Locked
