[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Evolution debate: Why? (Page 1 of 13)
Posted: 4/11/2012 7:10:51 AM EDT
|
Say that it is completely and unarguably confirmed tomorrow that mankind evolved from apes, single-celled organisms, bowling shoe fungus, whatever. What good does that do us? I don't mean this to be flippant or sarcastic, but seriously, how would it make our lives any different? I just don't see any possible application of this knowledge. Discuss.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Science and knowledge is for faggots.  Now that's not fair, DK. I'm no Luddite... I can see the benefit of almost every form of science and research, just not this one. DanO Understanding how life formed on this planet and how it is still changing is not important? |
|
First off, humans did NOT, repeat, NOT evolve from apes!!!
We share a comm ancestry. Note the word ancestry. The whole business of being "descended from monkeys" or "being descended from apes" is a straw man argument. Facts and scientific evidence abound. Science strives to know and understand, and the question "What good does that do us?" is, at the very best, irrelevant. Do some reading. |
|
We can begin to understand the factors that affect populations over time, propose explanations for existing observations and predict and test potential changes to environments and populations on future generations and species. We can make sense of the natural world we live in, understand the relationships between living organisms and how populations are changed over time and possibly apply such knowledge towards more advanced benefits beyond selective just breeding of crops and animals. Or, we can ignore basic knowledge and just roam the fields chewing cud. |
|
Quoted: First off, humans did NOT, repeat, NOT evolve from apes We share a comm ancestry. Note the word ancestry. The whole business of being "descended from monkeys" or "being descended from apes" is a straw man argument. Facts and scientific evidence abound. Science strives to know and understand, and the question "What good does that do us?" is, at the very best, irrelevant. Do some reading. We are Apes, Great Apes to be precise.  |
|
Quoted: We can begin to understand the factors that affect populations over time, propose explanations for existing observations and predict and test potential changes to environments and populations on future generations and species. We can make sense of the natural world we live in, understand the relationships between living organisms and how populations are changed over time and possibly apply such knowledge towards more advanced benefits beyond selective just breeding of crops and animals. Or, we can ignore basic knowledge and just roam the fields chewing cud. GD chooses Cud. Here is a better topic of debate: Would the historical Jesus of Nazareth eschew science like many of his later followers have chosen to do?
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
First off, humans did NOT, repeat, NOT evolve from apes We share a comm ancestry. Note the word ancestry. The whole business of being "descended from monkeys" or "being descended from apes" is a straw man argument. Facts and scientific evidence abound. Science strives to know and understand, and the question "What good does that do us?" is, at the very best, irrelevant. Do some reading. We are Apes, Great Apes to be precise.
Primate sub-order Anthropoidea. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: First off, humans did NOT, repeat, NOT evolve from apes We share a comm ancestry. Note the word ancestry. The whole business of being "descended from monkeys" or "being descended from apes" is a straw man argument. Facts and scientific evidence abound. Science strives to know and understand, and the question "What good does that do us?" is, at the very best, irrelevant. Do some reading. We are Apes, Great Apes to be precise. Primate sub-order Anthropoidea. Whoa now... you may cause somebody a rash with all that learnin'!!! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Science and knowledge is for faggots.
Now that's not fair, DK. I'm no Luddite... I can see the benefit of almost every form of science and research, just not this one. DanO But we don't KNOW what the benefit is going to be until we look.
When theorist began working out the basic structure of matter, and understanding nuclear physics - they didn't know at the time what the field would eventually yield. When biologists began figuring out DNA and RNA, they didn't know what kind of medical advances it would lead to. So we have to investigate all sorts of fields, and apply the lens of the modern scientific method, because who knows where that knowledge might lead us? The argument could be made that in terms of PRACTICAL knowledge that affects every day life, it doesn't matter if we understand the earth goes around the sun, or vice-versa. It doesn't matter if we think the stars are just twinkly lights hanging on a big velvet sheet above the world. It doesn't matter if we understand the the stars that move in weird patterns are actually other planets. But an understanding of astrophysics may yield all kinds of important knowledge to mankind (heck, maybe even crucial to mankind's long term survival) in the future. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First off, humans did NOT, repeat, NOT evolve from apes We share a comm ancestry. Note the word ancestry. The whole business of being "descended from monkeys" or "being descended from apes" is a straw man argument. Facts and scientific evidence abound. Science strives to know and understand, and the question "What good does that do us?" is, at the very best, irrelevant. Do some reading. We are Apes, Great Apes to be precise.
Primate sub-order Anthropoidea. I hate primates.
|
|
"A large part of mathematics which becomes useful developed with absolutely no desire to be useful, and in a situation where nobody could possibly know in what area it would become useful; and there were no general indications that it ever would be so. By and large it is uniformly true in mathematics that there is a time lapse between a mathematical discovery and the moment when it is useful; and that this lapse of time can be anything from 30 to 100 years, in some cases even more; and that the whole system seems to function without any direction, without any reference to usefulness, and without any desire to do things which are useful."
~Dr. John von Neumann He was talking about mathematics, but surely the same principle applies to many areas of scientific inquiry. Who knows what fruits the cataloging of one more of the zillions of species of bugs will yield, or if they'll ever yield fruit at all? Evolution is a framework which helps us understand why we are the way we are, where we came from, and to theorize about where we might go. Understanding why and how genes and traits and behaviors propagate and change over time might help us understand the "reasoning" behind our nature. ETA: Consider that the alternatives, either No Theory or some already-decided-upon fixed theory, provide no information, give no context, help us do nothing, help us imagine nothing, and provide no framework or understanding. Evolution and the investigation thereof may have no use to you at the moment, but the alternatives are incapable of ever being of any practical use to you whatsoever. |
|
Quoted:
"A large part of mathematics which becomes useful developed with absolutely no desire to be useful, and in a situation where nobody could possibly know in what area it would become useful; and there were no general indications that it ever would be so. By and large it is uniformly true in mathematics that there is a time lapse between a mathematical discovery and the moment when it is useful; and that this lapse of time can be anything from 30 to 100 years, in some cases even more; and that the whole system seems to function without any direction, without any reference to usefulness, and without any desire to do things which are useful." ~Dr. John von Neumann He was talking about mathematics, but surely the same principle applies to many areas of scientific inquiry. Who knows what fruits the cataloging of one more of the zillions of species of bugs will yield, or if they'll ever yield fruit at all? Evolution is a framework which helps us understand why we are the way we are, where we came from, and to theorize about where we might go. Understanding why and how genes and traits and behaviors propagate and change over time might help us understand the "reasoning" behind our nature. Back in the day, Carl Sagan used to use the example of James Clark Maxwell. He died in 1879. But, try to imagine the 20th century without practical understanding of electromagnetic radiation. |
|
Quoted:
Say that it is completely and unarguably confirmed tomorrow that mankind evolved from apes, single-celled organisms, bowling shoe fungus, whatever. What good does that do us? I don't mean this to be flippant or sarcastic, but seriously, how would it make our lives any different? I just don't see any possible application of this knowledge. Discuss. Historical patterns of change can help us understand potential for future patterns of change. The question is, why wouldn't you want to know where you evolved from? |
|
Quoted:
I imagine that the atmosphere would be a little different in churches......
Modern protestant churches, probably. Early science was well supported by churches, however. There was this idea that as long as science wasn't contradicting the idea of God's existence, the more they could learn the better. |
|
Quoted:
I imagine that the atmosphere would be a little different in churches...... Churches throughout history have ably adapted themselves to changing circumstances. If you flipped a switch today that spontaneously gave everyone on earth knowledge about speciation and changes in population over time (put that way because I don't want to suggest a dogmatic 'belief' in evolution), religious folks would think for a while, make adjustments for conflicts, and move on. The early Christians, as a persecuted minority, practiced near-total abstention from violence, going so far as to allow themselves to be subjected to unbelievably horrible tortures rather than to violate their principles by either striking out at their assailants or by compromising on their beliefs. Once Christianity became a state religion and had to deal with things like having a functioning military and being invaded by barbarians, the folks in charge of the church put their heads together, made adjustments to suit their circumstances, and moved on. ETA: ... I guess you totally did just say that it'd be 'different', and then I spent two paragraphs saying that they'd make it 'different'. Derp!
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I imagine that the atmosphere would be a little different in churches......
Modern protestant churches, probably. Early science was well supported by churches, however. There was this idea that as long as science wasn't contradicting the idea of God's existence, the more they could learn the better. Evolution kinda throws a wrench into the whole Genesis thing.....
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I imagine that the atmosphere would be a little different in churches...... Churches throughout history have ably adapted themselves to changing circumstances. If you flipped a switch today that spontaneously gave everyone on earth knowledge about speciation and changes in population over time (put that way because I don't want to suggest a dogmatic 'belief' in evolution), religious folks would think for a while, make adjustments for conflicts, and move on. The early Christians, as a persecuted minority, practiced near-total abstention from violence, going so far as to allow themselves to be subjected to unbelievably horrible tortures rather than to violate their principles by either striking out at their assailants or by compromising on their beliefs. Once Christianity became a state religion and had to deal with things like having a functioning military and being invaded by barbarians, the folks in charge of the church put their heads together, made adjustments to suit their circumstances, and moved on. ETA: ... I guess you totally did just say that it'd be 'different', and then I spent two paragraphs saying that they'd make it 'different'. Derp! I agree....the atmosphere might be different for a little while, and then they would say, "Genesis is a metaphor for evolution."
Oh wait, they already say that........ |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
WHOA it's almost like a religion for atheists....hrmmmmm http://iseeahappyface.com/upload/the-only-3-letters-i-need-to-know-us-and-a.jpg UMADBRO 
Below is your people...not very scientific or intellectually honest. (added more) It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations
Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157. Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.
N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found –– not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.
E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal –– without demonstration –– to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997. Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I imagine that the atmosphere would be a little different in churches...... Modern protestant churches, probably. Early science was well supported by churches, however. There was this idea that as long as science wasn't contradicting the idea of God's existence, the more they could learn the better. Evolution kinda throws a wrench into the whole Genesis thing..... I don't see how myself...  |
|
Quoted:
Need more bananas  
OP, besides a sense of wonder and intellectual curiosity, some people take evolution as evidence that the universe is entirely a coincidence, and that sentience and self-awareness is nothing special. I'm not one of them, but they exist. To them evolution is as much a religion as the organized faiths they sneer at. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WHOA it's almost like a religion for atheists....hrmmmmm http://iseeahappyface.com/upload/the-only-3-letters-i-need-to-know-us-and-a.jpg UMADBRO
Below is your people...not very scientific or intellectually honest. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found –– not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.
E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal –– without demonstration –– to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997. Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423. Joy, a quote splooge. Did you get those from a "why evolution is the debil" book? |
|
<= Practicing Christian
Here is my opinion on why Christians are so defensive of literal 7 day creation. It has been as 7 literal days for millenniums. If The Church backtracks and says, "You know what, we were wrong about the literal 7 days" then that opens the floodgate for a lot of skeptics to ask, "If the doctrine of 7 literal days is wrong, what other doctrines are wrong?" Christians stand behind a young earth and 7 literal days for self preservation. |
|
Quoted:
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found –– not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.
E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. The second law of thermodynamics is ABSOLUTELY SPECIFIC about the circumstances under which it applies: in AND ONLY IN a closed system. That is, systems into which and out of which energy and mass cannot flow. The Earth is not a closed system. It radiates energy into space, and receives a tremendous amount of energy from the sun. The universe itself is probably a closed system, and if so, its overall level of entropy is increasing. But that its overall level is increasing does not preclude there from being local 'concentrations' of order, or local increases in order. The increasing entropy of the sun results in an expulsion of huge amounts of energy which can be used to do work and create more order. This order will eventually decay, but that doesn't mean it isn't orderly now, or becoming increasingly orderly now. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WHOA it's almost like a religion for atheists....hrmmmmm http://iseeahappyface.com/upload/the-only-3-letters-i-need-to-know-us-and-a.jpg UMADBRO
Below is your people...not very scientific or intellectually honest. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found –– not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.
E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal –– without demonstration –– to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997. Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423. Joy, a quote splooge. Did you get those from a "why evolution is the debil" book? Aww don't like fact then continue to roll in the mudd you call science ....btw these are quotes from your "experts"....so please tell me now your apostles of science are wrong. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: WHOA it's almost like a religion for atheists....hrmmmmm http://iseeahappyface.com/upload/the-only-3-letters-i-need-to-know-us-and-a.jpg UMADBRO Below is your people...not very scientific or intellectually honest. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found –– not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles. E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal –– without demonstration –– to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997. Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423. Joy, a quote splooge. Did you get those from a "why evolution is the debil" book? Aww don't like fact then continue to roll in the mudd you call science ....btw these are quotes from your "experts"....so please tell me now your apostles of science are wrong. It's called quote mining. You take a bunch of quotes out of context to remove the real meaning and apply your own. It's just so people can go "Ahah! See what they said!". It's a blatant logical fallacy and creationists do it all the time. There's a 100% chance you've read none of those books or articles.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WHOA it's almost like a religion for atheists....hrmmmmm http://iseeahappyface.com/upload/the-only-3-letters-i-need-to-know-us-and-a.jpg UMADBRO
Below is your people...not very scientific or intellectually honest. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found –– not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.
E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal –– without demonstration –– to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997. Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423. Joy, a quote splooge. Did you get those from a "why evolution is the debil" book? Aww don't like fact then continue to roll in the mudd you call science ....btw these are quotes from your "experts"....so please tell me now your apostles of science are wrong. For one, they represent an intentional distortion of truth. Or, to use the words of one English translation of Ecxodus, "the bearing of false witness." I guess that doesn't bother you, though. I doubt you read the source material. You couldn't have - unless you, too, are a liar. You got these quotes from a source you trusted, and ran with it. A fellow "Christian" wouldn't lie to you, right? The ridiculous entropy strawman has already been countered. A few second on google, and I quickly learned the "Teaching and Propaganda" excerpt was from an opinion piece, easily found online. In reading it, I also quickly saw that the person who pulled that quote did so with the intent to misrepresent. The courses are too rushed to allow a thorough airing of all views, of all evidence. In addition, it is impossible for students to personally carry out the necessary experiments, even if they were able to construct the long chains of inferen- tial reasoning required to interpret the experimental results. So I, like all my colleagues, teach the way I do because I have little choice. But it is brainwashing nonetheless. When the dust settles, what I am asking my students to do is to accept what I say because I, as an accredited representative of my discipline, profession, and academia, say it. All the reason, logic, and evidence that I use simply disguise the fact that the students are not yet in a position to sift and weigh the evidence and arrive at their own conclusions. It is a teacher being honest about the fact that an introductory physics class simply cannot cover the material to fully cause an honest, but skeptical, person to accept the more complex theories of physics. It is not a condemnation of the theories, or a suggestion they are not valid. Ironically, Newtonian physics (which would include thermodynamics) is one of those theories. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: WHOA it's almost like a religion for atheists....hrmmmmm http://iseeahappyface.com/upload/the-only-3-letters-i-need-to-know-us-and-a.jpg UMADBRO Below is your people...not very scientific or intellectually honest. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found –– not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles. E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal –– without demonstration –– to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997. Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423. Joy, a quote splooge. Did you get those from a "why evolution is the debil" book? Aww don't like fact then continue to roll in the mudd you call science ....btw these are quotes from your "experts"....so please tell me now your apostles of science are wrong.
|
|
But we don't KNOW what the benefit is going to be until we look.
When theorist began working out the basic structure of matter, and understanding nuclear physics - they didn't know at the time what the field would eventually yield. When biologists began figuring out DNA and RNA, they didn't know what kind of medical advances it would lead to. So we have to investigate all sorts of fields, and apply the lens of the modern scientific method, because who knows where that knowledge might lead us? The argument could be made that in terms of PRACTICAL knowledge that affects every day life, it doesn't matter if we understand the earth goes around the sun, or vice-versa. It doesn't matter if we think the stars are just twinkly lights hanging on a big velvet sheet above the world. It doesn't matter if we understand the the stars that move in weird patterns are actually other planets. But an understanding of astrophysics may yield all kinds of important knowledge to mankind (heck, maybe even crucial to mankind's long term survival) in the future. So it requires a leap of faith? Now that's pretty darn ironic.
But seriously, I see your point. If we could figure out the mechanism of adaptation/evolution, that could have profound impact. DanO |
|
Quoted:
What good does that do us? Not much. I've never bothered reading intensely on "evolution" because anyone can find anything they want in any quote (see rest of thread for example) and then "disprove" it using another quote by the same guy in some other interpreted way. Until we directly observe this darwin/transformation into a completely different species it will only ever be he said/she said despite everyone's best intentions. I believe modification/adaption exists . . . full-blown, primordial-goo creature spawned by lava/water/lightning and developing eyes/lungs/etc seems a little farfetched. Humanism contains several unanswered questions though: Who is man/whats the point? What is good? What is evil? Random chance doesn't answer much of how the world actually works in the realm of philosophy . . . because ultimately there are no absolutes. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: What good does that do us? Not much. I've never bothered reading intensely on "evolution" because anyone can find anything they want in any quote (see rest of thread for example) and then "disprove" it using another quote by the same guy in some other interpreted way. Until we directly observe this darwin/transformation into a completely different species it will only ever be he said/she said despite everyone's best intentions. I believe modification/adaption exists . . . full-blown, primordial-goo creature spawned by lava/water/lightning and developing eyes/lungs/etc seems a little farfetched. Humanism contains several unanswered questions though: Who is man/whats the point? What is good? What is evil? Random chance doesn't answer much of how the world actually works in the realm of philosophy . . . because ultimately there are no absolutes. You don't understand evolution. Go read a book or 14. There is no sudden magical transformation, the little bits add up to a big bit. Keep philosophical theory out of scientific theory. |
|
The point of science is to understand the world around us... It doesn't have to have an application. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge. But on that note, I am sure most virologists, geneticists, and most biologists in general would disagree with you that there are no "practical" applications. Should we not study it just because it threatens some people's worldview? |