Originally posted by kmax87Sorry, just another point on the multiverse hypothesis, I don't actually ascribe to it, what evidence I've seen (none, though the mathematics says there's absolutely nothing wrong with the idea, that's not saying the same as that the idea is the case) doesn't convince me. It shows that there's nothing in the laws of physics refusing a multiverse, but as of yet I'm still to see the evidence to support the hypothesis. Consequently, this universe is enough for me.
I have a problem with your grasp of statistics then it seems. A possible outcome is not just that events probability multiplied by its inverse. You are basically saying that if an event has a probability of one in a hundred occurring say for a random draw for arguments sake of 100 balls in a jar numbered 1 to a 100. Then given that the probability of you dra ...[text shortened]... lker was not actually falling to his imagined death of a powerful stellar destruction device?
2 edits
Originally posted by kmax87All right then. Please give us some stats showing how highly contested this issue is. I disagree that it's highly contested by anyone who might be expected to know about scientific matters such as this.
"Not by scientists in relevant fields"
Assertion? Dismissive technique that by ridicule you hope to prove anything you like?
I think I have given enough of my logic on the subject of evolutionary theory for anyone to discern my opinion on it.
I mean, you could say that whether the Earth is a globe or not is "highly contested". What exactly does that mean? You could complain that I'm dismissing your people, but if they are obviously ignorant fools with no background in anything relevant then I don't think that's unreasonable.
Are you familiar with Project Steve?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWow, over 800 steves!
All right then. Please give us some stats showing how highly contested this issue is. I disagree that it's highly contested by anyone who might be expected to know about scientific matters such as this.
I mean, you could say that whether the Earth is a globe or not is "highly contested". What exactly does that mean? You could complain that I'm d ...[text shortened]... g relevant then I don't think that's unreasonable.
Are you familiar with Project Steve?
In any case, to get back to the original topic of the thread, surely, despite the obvious fact that some people may have reservations about it, the fact that it is the widely held position of science, and would only be taught in the science class (no one would try to sneak it into a religion class for instance) then WHAT is teh problem with having it on a school curriculum. If someone wants to learn about science, they need to learn biology, which itself is succinctly put into focus by evolutionary theory.
Actually, why isn't it on the national curriculum? I thought even home-schooled kids had to learn the national curriculum?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat you see as slight disagreement or mild divergence of opinion may be interpreted by others as being highly contested. Its just a matter of perspective. As to finding you stats etc you need a research assistant, this is a debate forum. If you want to discredit my assertions using an objective approach, then you can trawl the internet looking for stats to bolster your case. There is enough argument presented by the case I have made, for you to produce a counterpoint purely by reasonable conjecture. I am not about to go and do your leg work for you. The onus of proof in an argument should rest with the person unable to accept the proposition.
All right then. Please give us some stats showing how highly contested this issue is. I disagree that it's highly contested by anyone who might be expected to know about scientific matters such as this.
I mean, you could say that whether the Earth is a globe or not is "highly contested". What exactly does that mean? You could complain that I'm d ...[text shortened]... g relevant then I don't think that's unreasonable.
Are you familiar with Project Steve?
Originally posted by whodeyYes, absolutely. Like maths and all the other stuff we're forced to learn,
Should children be forced to learn evolution?
evolution should be obligatory as well. I think the only subject I personally
have no idea what good it could possibly do to young minds, is... uh,
samhällskunskap... how to say samhällskunskap in English?.. well, anyways,
that's a subject I wouldn't mind see dropped. But evolution should definitely
be obligatory. How else could we possibly understand how the world around
us evolves or came to be the way it is? I haven't heard a theory yet that
even compares to evolution, so...
Originally posted by kmax87Anybody who came up with such enormous odds for life occurring is clearly making wild guesses who's margin of error far exceeds the accuracy being claimed.
Btw statistically speaking anything above 10^50 is irrelevant, and most calculations that I have read about of the probability it would take for life to spontaneously emerge out of a pool of its constituent chemicals place it in the order of 10^256, which is so way of any chart you may as well say that Petra the rock city was formed by random wind and sand weathering.
Originally posted by stockenWhy not just have a subject called 'Change". Evolution means so many things to so many people that one persons reaction to what the word implies may be totally different to what another person reads into the word. As you point out it is a very useful concept. We describe the development of an idea as its evolution. We talk of the way societies change and evolve. Being such an embedded idea in our modern way of thinking makes it impossible for most to see why anyone could have problems with the concept of having it taught.
Yes, absolutely. Like maths and all the other stuff we're forced to learn, evolution should be obligatory as well. .... How else could we possibly understand how the world around us evolves or came to be the way it is? I haven't heard a theory yet that even compares to evolution, so...
The problem as I see it is that evolution as a descriptive term to denote change and possibly an increase in complexity of ideas and arrangements, tends to have a very temporal now aspect in its most common use.
On the other hand evolution, as it pertains to the origins of our species, by the very nature of it depending on time scales that are way beyond the easy comprehension that the experience of time our 70 year odd lifespan can teach us, makes for a fascinating tale, but so interwoven with conjecture and circumstantial theorizing that it amazes me how little people question when they absorb this 'truth'.
Agryson's assertion that it is " just a theory, along with gravity, newtonian physics, relativity, basic orbital mechanics, atomic theory." is a common perception held by many people, but I have a lot more faith in the Newtonian Laws of motion and the Law of gravitation and the mathematical certainty in orbital mechanics and kinematics than I will ever have confidence in any theory of evolution.
The problem is I have read through many articles by many eminent scholars on the subject of evolution, and if i had a dollar for every time one of them took you through a detailed exposition of their thesis and then get to a point that is at the limit of their evidence and then neatly propose some neat mechanism or plausible reason for how the species they are looking at could have adapted or evolved or speciated or mutated into something else. ATY read through your own pile of stuff and find what I am saying for yourself. I have read to many articles in my time not to be blinded by the academic sleight of hand when it comes to propositions of adaptation or propositions of lineage.
Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that the scenarios developed are flimsy or lack development or complexity or are not compelling or do not seem to make the best sense from the available data. A lot of very articulate and intelligent people have spent their lives going up this hill.
The point is that if you buy some of the underlying concepts and principles you start to embrace a language that includes many unproven/unprovable hypothesis. In and around that a lot of paleontological discovery has added weight to some of those propositions and hypothesis, but it still hasn't proven them beyond a reasonable doubt the way that if you refuse to wear your seatbelt and crash your car at 60mph into a solid wall, the Laws of motion will conspire to put you through your windshield everytime.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs opposed to those who are sublimely telling us how easy it is to go from being a worm to being a primate having a need for sex clearly aren't?
Anybody who came up with such enormous odds for life occurring is clearly making wild guesses who's margin of error far exceeds the accuracy being claimed.
Originally posted by kmax87I don't think anyone is saying that evolution is "truth", but only a way to
Why not just have a subject called 'Change". Evolution means so many things to so many people that one persons reaction to what the word implies may be totally different to what another person reads into the word. As you point out it is a very useful concept. We describe the development of an idea as its evolution. We talk of the way societies change and evol ...[text shortened]... lid wall, the Laws of motion will conspire to put you through your windshield everytime.
try and understand our own physical connection with the world around us.
Just recently I read an article about how Homo Habilis is probably
not the ancestor of Homo Erectus (ti-hi) as previously believed, but
that they shared a common ancestor. Homo Erectus in turn is believed to
be an ancestor of our own species, Homo Sapiens.
This doesn't make evolution as such any less plausible or weak. The fact
that science constantly has to revise theories only shows that scientists
admit their theories may have flaws and are willing to revise them as
needed when evidence suggest revisions are required.
So, if this is taught in school, you'd get a new generation of people who
can question and revise their knowledge by what they observe from the
world around them. This is good. This is to be encouraged.
To not teach evolution (or any other scientific branch that is still in
question), or to teach some religious ideas written in stone, will only
serve to create mindless drones who couldn't recognise a connection if it
jumped up and bit them in the bottom, as it were.
Originally posted by stockenRecced,
I don't think anyone is saying that evolution is "truth", but only a way to
try and understand our own physical connection with the world around us.
Just recently I read an article about how Homo Habilis is probably
not the ancestor of Homo Erectus (ti-hi) as previously believed, but
that they shared a common ancestor. Homo Erectus in turn is ...[text shortened]... couldn't recognise a connection if it
jumped up and bit them in the bottom, as it were.
the one thing science has is it's ability to accept its own mistakes and correct them. I can't think of any other human puruit that has gone to such lengths to contradict itself for the purposes of completeness.
Originally posted by kmax87That's the problem, if they were to go to a school which taught evolution, they'd all know what it actually meant rather than all the b #hit that gets bandied around by people that should know better.
Why not just have a subject called 'Change". Evolution means so many things to so many people that one persons reaction to what the word implies may be totally different to what another person reads into the word. As you point out it is a very useful concept. We describe the development of an idea as its evolution. We talk of the way societies change and evol ...[text shortened]... lid wall, the Laws of motion will conspire to put you through your windshield everytime.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Sounds like a fascinating new approach. It'll cut down my time spent writing papers significantly. Just think: no introductions, no materials and methods sections, with its tedious rehash of the experimental setup, no results section, just skip straight to the conclusion and then challenge anyone who doesn't accept it to produce their evidence and reasoning for not agreeing with me.
The onus of proof in an argument should rest with the person unable to accept the proposition.
I imagine the Bush administration will be pursuing this line in terrorism cases too.
"Your honor, this man is a terrorist!"
"Am not!"
"Are to!"
"Am not!"
"Are to!"
"Am not!"
"Oh no? Prove it!"
Tell me the truth, you're angling for a job as the next Attorney General, aren't you?