Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
SCIENCE BUFFS; More stuff to chew on ...
Topic Started: Aug 13 2006, 12:30 AM (877 Views)
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
I think you were trying to say that Conway Morris thinks the Cambrian Explosion is a bunch of evolutionary hooey.


Not at all. I think that Morris considers the attempts by many evolutionists to explain away the questions raised by the Cambrian Explosion is a bunch of hooey, and I think he has the credentials to justify that position.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
But isn't his solution "God did it"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
No. Are you dismissing his work because you think he does?
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
justme
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Nunatax
Aug 13 2006, 02:51 PM

Can't you play it yourself yet?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I should've said "everytime I hear and/or play............."

Admittedly, I don't play it often. The kids like it and so I play it for them. It's funny that they listen to what I listened to when I was their age. I found a Journey CD in the 19 year olds pick up truck the other day.

Stay around, will ya!!!!!!
"Men sway more towards hussies." G-D3
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Not at all. I think that Morris considers the attempts by many evolutionists to explain away the questions raised by the Cambrian Explosion is a bunch of hooey, and I think he has the credentials to justify that position.


His credentials are no better than Gould's -they duke it out here:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/nat..._cambrian.html)

or any of the molecular biologist who claim that there was no explosion, or indeed any of the other evolutionary biologists (he doesn't seem to have the majority view which he dismiesses as "reductionist").

He appears to believe in the explosion and think that we don't yet have the mechanisms nailed down yet (any of the mechanisms already mentioned in this thread may or may not turn out to be the answer or perhaps something else, we'll have to wait and see):

Quote:
 

What Triggered the Cambrian Explosion? Isotopic and chemical indicators (2, 4), notably 13C (Fig. 1), 32S, 87Sr, and phosphogenesis, suggest substantial changes in ocean chemistry and circulation on various time-scales. Despite repeated speculation, the extent to which these changes in the oceans influenced, let alone stimulated, the Cambrian explosion is obscure. The motor of the Cambrian explosion was largely ecological, notably with the rise of macroscopic predation (and defense) and effective filter-feeding on the seafloor and in the pelagic zone. Skeletal hard-parts, the most tangible expression of this event, seem to have been largely protective, even though the proportion of animals with robust hard-parts in the original communities was small (11).

There is also continued interest in the role of genomic change, especially with respect to the homeotic genes. Although they are clearly of central importance in the definition of bodyplan architecture, there is a risk of losing the overall evolutionary context (34). It is evident that at least some components of a given bodyplan are assembled by virtue of a genetic "toolbox." This, in turn, has provoked extensive discussions on definitions of homology, but perhaps deflects the interesting question of how such toolboxes are recruited. This is no trivial point because there is increasing evidence for extensive co-option and redeployment of genes. Not only that, but there are intriguing mismatches between genomic architecture and bodyplan complexity. To complicate matters further, a substantial proportion of the metazoan genome was probably available well before the Cambrian explosion. Genes make bodies and bodyplans require a corresponding genetic architecture, but we are still far from understanding either their interconnections or evolution.

To conclude: The Cambrian explosion is real and its consequences set in motion a sea-change in evolutionary history. Although the pattern of evolution is clearer, the underlying processes still remain surprisingly elusive.


http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4426

But that doesn't mean the basic ideas are in doubt, or that I.D. theory is not a huge joke.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Ah, I see. Only those scientists who tow the line are to be listened to.....
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Not at all. I'll listen to Conway Morris he looks like has interesting ideas.

The question of whether or not you would get a radically different world if you ran the clock back and let life evolve all over again is intriguing.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Larry
Aug 13 2006, 12:09 PM
No. Are you dismissing his work because you think he does?

Absolutely not. But at some point, he deviates from scientific inquiry. I'm still puzzled as to what your point is about his views on the Cambrian Explosion.

Within the context of talking about differences of opinion on mechanics of evolution, you bring him up. Why?

If your point is that different scientists have different theories about the mechanics of evolution, I guess my response would be "well, duh."

I don't understand why you are so willing to trot out situations where there is a lack of scientific consensus as if to prove that scientific consensus doesn't exist. Scientific theory is, by its very nature, cumulative. You start with a theory, you attempt to disprove it, you attempt to find alternative explanations that can be observed and tested. You will find disagreements in every aspect of science. Every single one. This doesn't mean that science is bad or evil, or that people who place weight on scientific results are fascists. To believe that is simply to be ignorant about the realities of scientific pursuit.

One could say the same about religion. You can find honest disagreement about every religion under the sun. Does this mean that all religions are bad or evil, and their followers are fascists?

This conversation is absurd on its face.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
David Burton
Senior Carp
Is this explanation acceptable to you or not?
If not, why not?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/cambtect.html

Or this?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/cambloc.html

Do you notice anything wrong?

And here,

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camblife.html

I see no mention of the key element here,

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/073820607...glance&n=283155

In the Blink of an Eye by Andrew Parker

I suggest that THIS book might in fact be worth reading.

Now this,

http://www.learnthebible.org/creation_scie...s_evolution.htm

is an example of "shoehorning" of a kind that I discard out of hand. One reason I could not be a Protestant Christian is that I no longer think pursuing everything in reference to (or in defense of) the Bible relevant or expeditious. Too late, I already know (for certain) where much of the original beginnings of the Bible came from (and they are abridged from the original at that). If the "Intelligent Design" crowd is solely interested in shoehorning everything with reference to the Bible, you can count me out.

But I am still hesitant to junk the ID theory completely, just as I am willing to acknowledge the possibility that some kind of evolution does occur, maybe most of it in fact occurred long ago. My present inclinations are to suggest that we haven't enough information to be absolutely dogmatically certain about anything.

Moonbat - "That's right David the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinian theory and Mendelian genetics is just a guess."

Yup, still just a guess to me, and you did say it as a jeer to me. I don't like your tone of voice and you still haven't authenticated yourself.

I do propose however that science would be better informed by more sharing of information across disciplines. While specialization is a requirement to know anything precisely at all, carrying it to the extremes where each branch of science develops a vocabulary and concepts that are almost unintelligible to other scientists has tended to hamper communications. The PC world we live in demands an end to rationalizing from the general to the specific in countless ways to reinforce the importance of the specific at the cost of instrumental relevance. See I can actually write like an academic too, if I choose.

Putting it mildly, science's biggest blemishes are caused by molding narrowly focused observations to fit general conditions they have not adequately understood and often cannot understand without assuming the regularity of something over considerable lengths of time. They actually know about as much as the Bible thumpers (which is nothing at all in the scheme of things) and act in a similar way when confronted.

These assumptions exist everywhere in science and are used to bolster or hold up theories that would not stand without them; the Big Bang (expanding universe) theory requires many "adjustable parameters," the microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball, element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters, or my personal favorite, the universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years. And yet theories are circulated as much as fact through the popular academic scientific literature and nobody thinks there's anything wrong with it.

Scientists ARE human, and thus prone to all the dark side of our makeup - and don't tell me it's just biochemistry - and they do make mistakes, sometimes big ones. Their biggest mistake as a bunch of people is assuming they know any more than the rest of us. They have special knowledge (usually in a fairly narrow area), and a few wide ranging ideas that are far from proven. They do not as a rule have much in the way of ethical concerns except for one; their ranking in the scientific fraternity, and don't tell me otherwise: too late, I've known too many scientists.

Larry - "I was addressing Quirt's attack on David over the fact that volcanoes have an impact on the ozone layer. Maybe you missed it, but the NASA website I mentioned (but forgot to give the link to) proves David was right. I also commented on the fact that scientists refer to the stuff coming out of volcanoes as "aerosols", and noted that not *all* mention of aerosols are in reference to deodorant cans. Nowhere did I say that deodorant can aerosols didn't play a part. Do you think you can now put your attitude of superior intellect away and pay attention?"

Thank-you Larry. I think you got my position correctly too; I have no doubt that some "science created products" we use might be causing some damage to the atmosphere, but as for these being the MAJOR cause of it, that's far from proven - and I don't really care if a dozen state funded bands of scientists sign a petition saying its so or not, understand?

Larry put it this way - "That doesn't mean CFCs didn't do any damage, or that we don't have to clean up our act. But it *does* mean that this is a complex subject, as are most subjects, and neither you nor I have a corner on the "answer market"."

Or to borrow a phrase from the Emperor in Amadeus;

"You are passionate, but you do not persuade."

Nina, you came up with a great post on Conway Morris. Here again, I doubt Morris would be able to go farther than posing questions with tantalizing but as yet unproven answers; what is the agency of this intelligent design, how or why does it work, etc. The faults with evolution by itself are as an explanation may be lessened greatly by work along the lines suggested by Andrew Parker. But one still has to ask certain questions that are remain mysterious; might the biological mechanism of eyes have a particular range of development that might make them feasible in 95% of the creatures on Earth within a span of 40 million years? My next question would go to geneticists specializing in the optical development of humans, fish, frogs, insects, etc.; have you found the probable mechanism yet and if so what are the genetic variables? Select them out then propose experiments based on survivability - lots of predator prey situations concocted. What are you left with? Who or what dropped the first eye into the Cambrian cauldron?

With any luck, we'll figure it out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
For those who wish to dismiss science as inaccurate and pointless, I would simply say 'look at the last 500 years'. What has 'non-scientific method' given us? What has 'scientific method' given us?

If we really want to start poking a stick at things which people treat dogmatically, why start with science? There's other candidates which would make a better target. People live their whole lives according to stories that they have absorbed since childhood with no evidencial basis whatsover. So, why do we feel it necessary to attack the dogma of scientific belief so aggressively?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
David Burton
Senior Carp
John D'Oh
Aug 13 2006, 12:48 PM
For those who wish to dismiss science as inaccurate and pointless, I would simply say 'look at the last 500 years'. What has 'non-scientific method' given us? What has 'scientific method' given us?

If we really want to start poking a stick at things which people treat dogmatically, why start with science? There's other candidates which would make a better target. People live their whole lives according to stories that they have absorbed since childhood with no evidencial basis whatsover. So, why do we feel it necessary to attack the dogma of scientific belief so aggressively?

LOL

For exactly the reasons you mentioned.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
David Burton
Aug 13 2006, 04:53 PM
John D'Oh
Aug 13 2006, 12:48 PM
For those who wish to dismiss science as inaccurate and pointless, I would simply say 'look at the last 500 years'. What has 'non-scientific method' given us? What has 'scientific method' given us?

If we really want to start poking a stick at things which people treat dogmatically, why start with science? There's other candidates which would make a better target. People live their whole lives according to stories that they have absorbed since childhood with no evidencial basis whatsover. So, why do we feel it necessary to attack the dogma of scientific belief so aggressively?

LOL

For exactly the reasons you mentioned.

OK, so how about starting a thread poking fun at all the silly Christians? There's sure to be plenty of ammunition.

Evolution may indeed be flawed. However to imply that the alternatives suggested by non-scientists are more valid is pretty unrealistic. In fact, can anybody point me to a theory created by Christianity which is 'better' than one created by science?

The Turtle Moves!
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
If your point is that different scientists have different theories about the mechanics of evolution, I guess my response would be "well, duh."


I have been told I was uneducated, silly, misinformed, whatever - by members here claiming that there is *NO DEBATE* among the top scientists within the scientific commmunity about evolution. I have just proven this to be wrong. There *is* debate.

I'm sorry you see the discussion as "absurd on its face". I see squirming.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Evolution may indeed be flawed. However to imply that the alternatives suggested by non-scientists are more valid is pretty unrealistic.


Are you of the opinion that Conway Morris isn't a scientist?
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nunatax
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Larry
Aug 13 2006, 01:49 PM
Quote:
 
If your point is that different scientists have different theories about the mechanics of evolution, I guess my response would be "well, duh."


I have been told I was uneducated, silly, misinformed, whatever - by members here claiming that there is *NO DEBATE* among the top scientists within the scientific commmunity about evolution. I have just proven this to be wrong. There *is* debate.

Who said that? :huh: I guess that was some misinterpretation on your part.

What has been said (I don't think it was me even though I fully agree), is that there is little debate about the main theory of evolution. Like you said yourself, you believe in the theory of evolution. But of course there is debate about the mechanisms, you're not going to hear me deny that.

I did say there is no debate among scientists about the role of CFC's, what I never said was that you were either silly or uneducated, I did say I thought you should read up on the subject. And that was in no way meant in a belittling way. I'm sorry if you saw it that way.

You seem somewhat familiar. Have I threatened you before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nunatax
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
justme
Aug 13 2006, 11:12 AM
Nunatax
Aug 13 2006, 02:51 PM

Can't you play it yourself yet?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I should've said "everytime I hear and/or play............."

Admittedly, I don't play it often. The kids like it and so I play it for them. It's funny that they listen to what I listened to when I was their age. I found a Journey CD in the 19 year olds pick up truck the other day.

Stay around, will ya!!!!!!

I don't play it often anymore either, actually it's quite a while ago since I played it. Fun that your kids like it :smile:

I'll do my best to stick around :wink:
You seem somewhat familiar. Have I threatened you before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
David Burton
Senior Carp
John D'Oh
Aug 13 2006, 01:09 PM
OK, so how about starting a thread poking fun at all the silly Christians? There's sure to be plenty of ammunition.

Because poking fun at Christians per se, is becoming about as pointless as poking fun at Amish or Hasidic Jews. Christianity has been sidelined by Science and therefore it makes more sense to single out scientists for criticism as they have the ears of the modern world.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
David Burton
Aug 13 2006, 08:14 PM
John D'Oh
Aug 13 2006, 01:09 PM
OK, so how about starting a thread poking fun at all the silly Christians? There's sure to be plenty of ammunition.

Because poking fun at Christians per se, is becoming about as pointless as poking fun at Amish or Hasidic Jews. Christianity has been sidelined by Science and therefore it makes more sense to single out scientists for criticism as they have the ears of the modern world.

Try telling that to George Bush, the 'Leader of the Free World(tm)'.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
I did say there is no debate among scientists about the role of CFC's, what I never said was that you were either silly or uneducated, I did say I thought you should read up on the subject. And that was in no way meant in a belittling way. I'm sorry if you saw it that way.


You aren't the one who said it, and it wasn't something I'm referencing from this thread.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nunatax
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Larry
Aug 13 2006, 04:56 PM
Quote:
 
I did say there is no debate among scientists about the role of CFC's, what I never said was that you were either silly or uneducated, I did say I thought you should read up on the subject. And that was in no way meant in a belittling way. I'm sorry if you saw it that way.


You aren't the one who said it, and it wasn't something I'm referencing from this thread.

Oh, OK :wink:
You seem somewhat familiar. Have I threatened you before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kentcouncil
Fulla-Carp
Actually, when I first read the thread title, I thought you were talking about these guys:

The Naked Scientists

Posted Image
It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't.

- P.G. Wodehouse
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3