Willful Ignorance of Evolution?

[_Moniker]

K, well I just ordered Why Sex is Fun by Diamond (marg is going to hold this post against me in the future!) and Ken Miller's book.

I hate to be a yappy dog. :)

[_beastie]

Thanks for the link, I'm checking it out (starting with dawkin's letter...wow... I'm stunned that someone wrote a hateful letter to Shermer, who strikes me as very tolerant of religion in general).

I also decided to order Darwin's Dangerous Idea for mother's day! (for one of my kids to give me, of course ;)

[_dartagnan]

Tarski,

Wel, I think yiou are just getting that impression from reading the authors you do. saying that consciousness is a mystery in Dawkins sense is just to say that there are lots of details to work out about why we have they intuitions we do. Dawkins actually agrees with Dennett.

Well Dennett claims he can "explain" consciousness, and that alone makes him fringe. Dawkins, who is completely familiar with Dennett's arguments, says consciousness is unexplainable and that, not most, but all scientists agree it is a mystery. Maybe he doesn't consider Dennett a scientist? I don't know. All I can do is report on what he said. I can't read his mind.

I have never met a personally met a physicist or biologist that didn't think that consciousnes was due to the brain.

I doubt anyone really believes the brain has nothing to do with consciousness, but that is really another question altogether than asking if consciousness is strictly a physical phenomenon. Sethbag on another thread tried to suggest we knew enough about the brain to say it produces consciousness and that this proves consciousness is a physical function. Most scientists disagree with this. Even Sam Harris, a rabid anti religionist who is a qualified neuroscientist, disagrees with this.

But that doesn't sell books so guess what you end up seeing in barnes and nobles? People love a mystery more than anything else. They are guilty of this in quantum mechaincs too.

Oh, don't make excuses as to why most scientists agree with this. This sounds too much like Dennett rhetoric, where you either agree with his theory or you're just someone who likes a good mystery. He loves to play that card. I'm simply quoting someone from your side of the fence here. I'm not pulling this out of my butt.

In any case, we are talking about evolution. This a biology question. Dennett explains the position. You need to understand the position.

I understand his position, and I have read his arguments. And I also recognize that he is fringe. His ideas on consciousness are not mainstream and his critics are plenty.

By the way, if we were talking about consciousness you would still definitely have to read Dennett. Do you just read those who oppose a view in order to understand it?

Nope. Looking at his book right now. Want me to cite something from a specific page? What I was quoting was an article published back in 1999. It might even be on the web somewhere. I'll see if I can find it.

It does sound like your objections are taken right from the pages of AnswersinGenesis.

I promise you I'm not. In fact, I don't think I have ever looked at that website more than once. It doesn't have the sound of scholarly credibility. Answers in Genesis? Yes, I can roll my eyes at that too.

You have to read about a science or philosophy firstly from the proponets and experts themselves--don't immediately go to the opposition and negative book reiews (I made that mistake re Dennett 10 years ago).

Thanks for the advice, but it is misplaced. I confess that I found out about Dennett from reading McGrath, but he only mentioned him in passing, so I got his book because I was interested in his arguments. As a computer guy, I found his computer-human analogy ridiculous. Chalmers is the more vocal opponent of Dennett, but I haven't read as much of his stuff as I would like.

Do you now understand why asking why the modern apes aren't turning into humans doesn't make sense in light of what the theorey really claims?

I don't believe I have really contested this. I initially asked the question and then everyone jumped on my case as if it was the dumbest question in the world. I let it go and people are still bringing it up. I never rejected the explanation that was offered. I only asked more questions that were tangential to this one. I never repeated the same question. I never even said that Schmo's first post on the subject was wrong - that humans and apes come from the same source. I simply pointed out how ignorance on the theory is understandable given the ubiquitous image attributed to evolution theory; one that can be found in virtually every textbook on the subject. You guys call it misleading, well fine. Then these books are misleading. You know what image I am referring to. It shows a chimpanzee walking and mutating into a human form. It doesn't show two lines, where an "ape like creature" walks in one line leading to human form and the other to modern apes. EA even said it was a fair question.

I haven't even mentioned this question since my first post, so I am surprised people are still pounding on it as if this is what I am concerned about. What I was grappling with was the ecological factors that could have made teh changes that took place, particularly with the idea of fish becoming birds. But Silentkid and EA quickly shot that one down by pointing out that most scientists believe birds evolved from land creatures. What I am still struggling with is the idea of flight. There just seems to be too much knowledge required for something to obtain flight by adaptation. There are natural laws to overcome that don't simply happen by chance via adaptation.

There is no linear progress marching toward any particular form or body plan. The fact that modern apes are similar to us (also apes) is because we recently diverged. We will only continue to diverge although they may stumble upon some of the same tricks we have and visa versa if the environment for us changes

Yes, but very little about this is testable, is it not? Isn't it true that the scientific method is limited to the present?

I notice that as soon as one begins to effectly explain evolution to someone and overcome thier objections they move to the question of abiogenesis.

Well it is really the same discussion, just at a different point on the chronological line, is it not? If you go back enough in time while discussing evolution, the question naturally arises: "So how did life go live"? Evolution doesn't even begin to explain that, so I can understand the tendency to avoid that area of the discussion.

Lets not change the subject just yet. What evolution does is explain diversity and common decent.

Yes, I understand that, which is kinda why I changed the subject and went further back to the beginning of life.

We must start with replicators to make it work. How the replicators got there is further back in history and harder to be sure about yet. We may never know the details just like we may never know how tall Jesus was or who the very fist person to think of atoms was and whether they we siting or standing when they thought of it.
We can only note that no one has come up with a logical obstruction to the development of simple replicators by random combination. So the question is why not?

Maybe because it isn't worth taking seriously? Why would anyone try to obstruct the development of anything? The burden of proof rests on those who think life can spontaneously go live from dead matter, using whatever chemical combinations one chooses. Even with theoretical models that propose such a possibility, nobody has been able to engineer this feat. So how much more unlikely is it that this took place by chance after the big bang?

Again, I can create matter that replicates itself too, but computer viruses tell us nothing about the origins of life. If we try to engineer life, and even if we are successful, we still have to address the fact that this life, whatever it may be, exists only because it was engineered by preexisting intelligence. But we haven't even gotten that far yet, so we still need to shoot for evidence that life can randomly appear from dead matter with no intelligent architect.

[_beastie]

Nope. Looking at his book right now. Want me to cite something from a specific page? What I was quoting was an article published back in 1999. It might even be on the web somewhere. I'll see if I can find it.

This is a somewhat odd phrase. Have you read the book, or are you just looking at it right now?

I can look at books I haven't read or own, too, and even quote from specific pages with the amazon search engine.

[Alf'Omega]

Hey man, you already proved you willfully misinterpret what you read, several times in this thread alone (assuming you actually read anything at all). There's no need to keep proving it over and over. That you misunderstand me is hardly surprising.

You've proved no such thing. You haven't even been participating in anything of substance. Stop trying to equate your posts with Tarski's. you're a mixed breed, between a "yes man" and a lapdog.

Oh yes, this thread proves you are someone who would recognize substance if it smacked you in the face. Do you have to prove you're a moron with every post?

Why do that when he can just learn about it on a board dedicated to Mormonism? I know that if I wanted to learn about the details of evolution, this would be the place to go.

You want him to actually learn it from the people most informed about it? Well... that doesn't really play into his willfully ignorant plans.

What is all this whining about anyway? Tarski provided a few measly posts and you're all acting like he is bending over backwards trying to be "patient" with me. He provided dozens of responses to JAK and marg last year in a "logic of theology" thread that went on for ages, and I don't recall anyone except Tarski complaining about that. For crying out loud we just started this this morning and Tarski and I have already kinda diverted onto a different matter altogether (origins of life) while silentkid and EA are answering my questions regarding evolution. If I were a student in his class constantly interrupting his discourse with the same questions, I could see why he would be frustrated. But this is a discussion forum for crying out loud. Get real.

And what is so wrong with going to a message forum where you can converse with experts on the subject? Sure it is called a "Mormon" forum, but since when do any of us really talk about Mormonism anymore? There are scientists on this forum who can offer intelligent responses to my questions (no, not you) and that is what I was shooting for. Are you upset because you feel left out? You don't have the audacity to step out of line and ask some challenging questions of your own? Oh well.

But hey, the lesson is learned again. We have to accept the consensus here or we better shut the hell up. And leave it up to you and beastie to make sure your experts are not bothered with sincere questions. Start lobbying for them to turn into jackasses like yourselves with yoru psychoanalytical tripe about how I'm just a wolf in sheep's clothing, etc. Just like the nimrods at MADB who got upset with me challenging Bokovoy and Hauglid on the Book of Abraham.

Oh yes, everyone's out to get dart. (Insert more mock crying at the 2 year old in the room). Still not quite over the persecution complex, I see.

Do I feel left out? LOL… no. See, here’s the difference between you and me: I actually understand the fundamentals of this theory. You don’t. What these nice people are saying already makes sense to me. I don’t have to ask them any questions about it because I already get it. And if I didn’t understand something (and I’m not here to pretend I know everything about it… I’ll leave that up to you), I’d go to one of thousands of websites that explain this stuff in detail, written by people who deal with it daily, like a normal person does. I wouldn’t demand people on a religion based message board to explain it to me, and when they naturally pushed back, I wouldn’t be stupid enough to claim it was because they didn’t know what they were talking about, or that it proved there were problems with the theory. Only a daft person would do that.

Again, you got me laughing with the "whining" line, partly because you can’t tell whining from sarcasm (more willful misunderstanding?), but also because we all know how much whining you love to do. That’s your MO! That's your raison d’être, isn't it? You just can't stand it that everyone can see through your obvious BS, unjustified arrogance and ignorance, so you have to take it out on the guy who isn't willing to get sucked in to your moronic crap and say what most people are likely thinking. Trust me, these kind people here are being extremely patient with you.

Again, you never read my original posts to you, so until you actually respond intelligently to those (well, to any posts here for that matter), I refuse to offer you anything, and I'll continue to mock you like you so richly deserve. Looks like I’ll be mocking you forever.

I now understand why you call everyone an idiot. Clearly, that's all you've got, since at some level, you have to understand that's who you are. You have to be the most belligerent, ignorant, pigheaded moron I've ever encountered on a message board, and I've talked to DCP. One day, you might want to stand up rather than continuing to stew in your own feces. You're the butt of everyone's joke, and you're too damn stupid to realize it. I actually forgot how laughable you are.

[_The Dude]

Here's the thread at MAD, beastie.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208419791

Holy crap, that link actually worked. You mean MDB is no longer blocked from linking to MADB? What's this world coming to??!!?? A world with no walls, no rules, total chaos!!!

[_Bond...James Bond]

Here's the thread at MAD, beastie.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208419791

Holy crap, that link actually worked. You mean MDB is no longer blocked from linking to MADB? What's this world coming to??!!?? A world with no walls, no rules, total chaos!!!

Maybe they forgot to keep those bans up when they redid the board a few weeks ago.

[_Tarski]

Oh, don't make excuses as to why most scientists agree with this.

I am not making excuses since i don't think most scientists in a a related field cognitive science do agree with this. If you think otherwise, I say you are jst pulling this out of your butt. I am a regular reader of cognitive science journals and philosophy journals. Some kind of physicalism is fairly standard. Certainly not fringe. Searle called himself a physicalist (http://cogprints.org/245/0/velmans8.html)
Penrose said he view of how the mind works is physica (and based on his objective ware reduction model).

Dennett is unweaving a rainbow and challenging deeply held intuitions. It is natural that people will have a problem getting over the hump. He was once one of my worst intellectual enemies (as if he would care--though I have corresponded with him several times).

In any case, physicalism is prominant in the physical sciences, biological sciences and in neurological/cognitive sciences.


The main problem with the alternatives is that they can't seem to specify what they are even talking about, they are puzzled alright, to the point of having nothing clear to suggest.

But, this is neither your forté nor the subject at hand.

Look, I can't even talk to you if you think that if a person holds that the universe is physical then they can't be right about evolution or physics or chemistry.
What would any of that ghost believing have to do with how evolution works and what the evidence for it may be?
You seem to categorize people first (materialist or non-materialist) and then on that basis decide whether they can be listened to or whether you can learn somethng from them on any subject.

[_Tarski]

But we haven't even gotten that far yet, so we still need to shoot for evidence that life can randomly appear from dead matter with no intelligent architect.

What is the difference between "dead matter" and "live matter"? Is this a vitalism thing? Is a virus alive? Where do you draw the line? Is there a magic ingredient or does it just need to reproduce and process chemical energy?

[_Trevor]

Beastie,

Well, you haven't said anything worth responding to.

And yet you responded.