74 replies to this topic

[plindboe]

canuck, on Jul 18 2008, 04:12 AM, said:

When I was in kindergarten my teacher told me that when having a discussion with someone, it is generally a good idea to pay attention to what the other person is saying.

Why didn't you take his advice?

canuck, on Jul 18 2008, 04:12 AM, said:

Clearly, this advice does not seem to have widespread currency, particularly amongst the true believers.

My comments regarding evolution were clearly directed to Darwinism and the widespread application of his theories. Specifically, I explicitly stated that his theory has two parts: the developments of variation within a species by a process of evolution; and the evolution of species from a common root.

I explicitly, and unambiguously, stated that the former is not an issue of contention; the latter is patent nonsense.

I draw the attention of the true believers to the title of Darwin’s work: “Origin of the Species by Natural Selection”.

If the true believers had either understood the title, or read the book, they would have understood my comments, and their uninformed diatribe would not have been necessary.

Furthermore they would have understood the significance of my reference to the fruit fly experiments, and why they are relevant to the discussion.

I am somewhat confused by the cheerleader’s diatribe about my apparent lack of understanding of evolution. I am of the belief that I have a very solid grasp of both genetics and evolution, in addition to a wide range of other scientific disciplines; I am, maybe somewhat naively, under the impression that this knowledge gives me a pretty solid foundation for the identification of the flaws in Darwinism.

Interestingly enough, one of the chief cheerleaders says: “How life arose, whether it be by abiogenisis, panspermia, God, aliens, or whatever, doesn’t matter, because evolutionary mechanisms don’t apply to non organisms.”

Funny, but the entire foundation of evolutionary theory arose from the need to explain the processes of life; both its creation, and its subsequent development. In addition, life requires an organism for its existence, and organisms by definition are life forms.

Look, it is very very simple. I'll sum it up as succinctly as I can:

Biological evolution depends on organisms passing on their traits. This is why we can only have biological evolution after the first life form has appeared and not before. The first life form is where the boundary is set for the theory's explanatory power; whatever led up to the first life form, is out of reach for the theory.

Do you understand? If not, read what I said again, as I don't think it can be explained any simpler.

[Seeker]

blah blah blah blah blah.

Edited by Seeker, 20 July 2008 - 12:26 AM.

[canuck]

Hmmmm............ I’m starting to get the feeling that our cheerleaders live in Wonderland, along with Alice; in their haste to defend their religion, they consistently miss the point.

Let me repeat, yet again: I have no objection to the theory of evolution as applied to the development of variation within a species.

What I do object to, and I have stated this repeatedly on numerous occasions, is the application of the Darwinian theory of evolution to the development of individual species, particularly from a common root.

Since this distinction seems to be lost on our cheerleaders, I will move along and suggest an alternative to Darwinism for the origin of species.

Currently, there is a considerable body of knowledge which shows similarity and commonality between various species. This data is interpreted within the current paradigm of Darwinian evolution as meaning that these species that share common genetic structures, and physical characteristics, are derived from each other or from a common root.

To paraphrase Darwinism: a long slow process of incremental change results in one species being transformed into one or more others. Extrapolating this process backwards, the theory hypothesises that all species arose from one entity.

The same observed facts can be explained by a more plausible, theory:

Consider the “Periodic Table of the Elements”. This lists and organises the majority of the 116 or so known chemical elements along lines of nuclear structure.

The significant point with the atomic elements is that everything, animate or inanimate, in the universe is composed of a particular combination and arrangement of a selection of these elements.

For example, a particular combination of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen may be used to form a common plastic, which is then molded to form a coffee cup. Another arrangement of these same elements may result in human skin.

Just because both products share the same elements does not mean that they are either related, or derived from each other. Ie: the coffee cup is not an ancestor of human skin; or vice versa.

So, I suggest that there may be an analogy with all life forms, and this analogy is centred in the genes.

Each gene may be considered a self contained functional unit, which can be expressed as a particular generic type physiological entity. By applying specific switches, the particular nature of that expression could be modified to reflect the characteristics of particular species involved.

For example, there may be a gene which expresses a structure containing three linked and articulated bones. By applying “Switch A”, that gene may be expressed as a the bone structure of a wing. By applying “Switch B”, that bone structure may become the foundation for an arm. By applying other switches, the specific characteristics of that structure maybe developed; ie: “Switch B-1" may express a human arm; “Switch B-263" may express a bat’s wing.

The common characteristic of both a human and a bat is that they are both alive. So it seems probable that there is a common combination of genes, and their switches, that are essential for the expression of life in general. So, every living entity may be required to have these genes imbedded as a “package” somewhere in their genetic makeup. So a human and a bat may share a large number of common genes.

If I wanted to create a new life form, the process would be as follows:

I would sit down with a pencil and paper and design the new species. I would select a collection of body parts from the “Body Parts” catalogue; and from this selection make up the new species. For example: I would select two legs, two wings, a body and a head.

Then I would go to “The Periodic Table of Genes”, and select the collection of genes that I would need in order to construct my new life form.

For starters, in order for it to be alive, it would need the universal “Life Package”. So I would select one of those.

In order for all physiological functionalities to work together, it would need a control system: ie: a central nervous system; therefore, I would get the “Nervous System Package”.

Since it is a living entity, it would need an energy system. So I would get the “Digestion and Nutrition Package”.

I would continue through this process until I had selected the genes for each biological and physiological functionality my new species required; legs, body, head, etc. Right down to the feathers on the wings.

I would then look up the “Compendium of Genes”, and determine what switches I would need for each of the functions. Ie: what switches do I need to set in order to make the “Legs Package” give me a set of legs; which switches do I need to set in order to make the “Arms Package” make a set of wings; which switches do I need to set to make the feathers green with pink polka dots; etc, etc.

I would go through this process until I had compiled my list of switches.

Having compiled my shopping list, I would go to “Genes R Us” and get what I need. Then I would throw them all into a test tube, stir, and bake for one hour at 72 degrees. Out would pop a DNA molecule which incorporates the totality of the genetic code for my new species. One thing would lead to another, and soon my new species would be walking the earth.

Note that the significant thing about this theory is that it provides the capability for the development of any kind of species, and does not require any of them to be related or derivative of any other. It provides the basis for the rapid development of species, and allows me to develop new species in response to immediate need. Furthermore, it does not preclude the evolution of characteristics within an existing species.

It specifically does address the issues relating to the need for fully functioning biological systems which are important for the function of, and the sustaining of life; it also addresses the issue of how life comes about in the first place.

This theory is useful in that it addresses most, if not all, of the issues that Darwinism ignores or dismisses as “historical” or “can’t be explained”.

It also sets the stage for raising the more fundamental issues, which current “science” dismisses out of hand.

[plindboe]

canuck, on Jul 20 2008, 07:43 AM, said:

Hmmmm............ I’m starting to get the feeling that our cheerleaders live in Wonderland, along with Alice; in their haste to defend their religion, they consistently miss the point.

Let me repeat, yet again: I have no objection to the theory of evolution as applied to the development of variation within a species.

What I do object to, and I have stated this repeatedly on numerous occasions, is the application of the Darwinian theory of evolution to the development of individual species, particularly from a common root.

Since this distinction seems to be lost on our cheerleaders, I will move along and suggest an alternative to Darwinism for the origin of species.

I HAVEN'T OBJECTED TO THAT AT ALL! READ MY POSTS AGAIN!

I apologize to any lurkers for yelling. Non-caps doesn't appear to register with canuck, as he doesn't appear to have understood a single thing I've explained.

canuck, on Jul 20 2008, 07:43 AM, said:

Currently, there is a considerable body of knowledge which shows similarity and commonality between various species. This data is interpreted within the current paradigm of Darwinian evolution as meaning that these species that share common genetic structures, and physical characteristics, are derived from each other or from a common root.

Oh, there's something you're entirely missing here. It's not just similarity that indicate common decent, but the fact that all larger organisms fit neatly in a nested hierarchy (aka. groups within groups). This is why we never see true chimeras between larger organisms. For instance we never see a bird with hair, or any non-mammal with hair for that matter. Evolution explains this-> hair arose among early mammals, so only animals that belong in that clade inherited the characteristic. One could mention countless other examples. I've never seen a violation of the nested hierarchy.

How does your idea explain the nested hierarchy? The designer wanted it like that?

Before you try to answer, I advice you to seriously try to understand the concept of 'nested hierarchy'. If you don't understand it, you are bound to provide an embarrassing reply.

canuck, on Jul 20 2008, 07:43 AM, said:

To paraphrase Darwinism: a long slow process of incremental change results in one species being transformed into one or more others. Extrapolating this process backwards, the theory hypothesises that all species arose from one entity.

The same observed facts can be explained by a more plausible, theory:

Consider the “Periodic Table of the Elements”. This lists and organises the majority of the 116 or so known chemical elements along lines of nuclear structure.

The significant point with the atomic elements is that everything, animate or inanimate, in the universe is composed of a particular combination and arrangement of a selection of these elements.

For example, a particular combination of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen may be used to form a common plastic, which is then molded to form a coffee cup. Another arrangement of these same elements may result in human skin.

Just because both products share the same elements does not mean that they are either related, or derived from each other. Ie: the coffee cup is not an ancestor of human skin; or vice versa.

So, I suggest that there may be an analogy with all life forms, and this analogy is centred in the genes.

Each gene may be considered a self contained functional unit, which can be expressed as a particular generic type physiological entity. By applying specific switches, the particular nature of that expression could be modified to reflect the characteristics of particular species involved.

For example, there may be a gene which expresses a structure containing three linked and articulated bones. By applying “Switch A”, that gene may be expressed as a the bone structure of a wing. By applying “Switch B”, that bone structure may become the foundation for an arm. By applying other switches, the specific characteristics of that structure maybe developed; ie: “Switch B-1" may express a human arm; “Switch B-263" may express a bat’s wing.

The common characteristic of both a human and a bat is that they are both alive. So it seems probable that there is a common combination of genes, and their switches, that are essential for the expression of life in general. So, every living entity may be required to have these genes imbedded as a “package” somewhere in their genetic makeup. So a human and a bat may share a large number of common genes.

If I wanted to create a new life form, the process would be as follows:

I would sit down with a pencil and paper and design the new species. I would select a collection of body parts from the “Body Parts” catalogue; and from this selection make up the new species. For example: I would select two legs, two wings, a body and a head.

Then I would go to “The Periodic Table of Genes”, and select the collection of genes that I would need in order to construct my new life form.

For starters, in order for it to be alive, it would need the universal “Life Package”. So I would select one of those.

In order for all physiological functionalities to work together, it would need a control system: ie: a central nervous system; therefore, I would get the “Nervous System Package”.

Since it is a living entity, it would need an energy system. So I would get the “Digestion and Nutrition Package”.

I would continue through this process until I had selected the genes for each biological and physiological functionality my new species required; legs, body, head, etc. Right down to the feathers on the wings.

I would then look up the “Compendium of Genes”, and determine what switches I would need for each of the functions. Ie: what switches do I need to set in order to make the “Legs Package” give me a set of legs; which switches do I need to set in order to make the “Arms Package” make a set of wings; which switches do I need to set to make the feathers green with pink polka dots; etc, etc.

I would go through this process until I had compiled my list of switches.

Having compiled my shopping list, I would go to “Genes R Us” and get what I need. Then I would throw them all into a test tube, stir, and bake for one hour at 72 degrees. Out would pop a DNA molecule which incorporates the totality of the genetic code for my new species. One thing would lead to another, and soon my new species would be walking the earth.

Note that the significant thing about this theory is that it provides the capability for the development of any kind of species, and does not require any of them to be related or derivative of any other. It provides the basis for the rapid development of species, and allows me to develop new species in response to immediate need. Furthermore, it does not preclude the evolution of characteristics within an existing species.

It specifically does address the issues relating to the need for fully functioning biological systems which are important for the function of, and the sustaining of life; it also addresses the issue of how life comes about in the first place.

This theory is useful in that it addresses most, if not all, of the issues that Darwinism ignores or dismisses as “historical” or “can’t be explained”.

It also sets the stage for raising the more fundamental issues, which current “science” dismisses out of hand.

It would help if you could be more succinct. You're bound to fail communicating your idea if you can't sum up your idea in a sentence or two.

So, ignoring for a moment the fact that organisms aren't lego, but show a continuum of pheno- and genotypes, what does your idea specifically explain besides similarity? Where specifically does your idea succeed where the theory of evolution fails? Most important of all, how do you plan to test your idea? How can it be potentially falsified? What evidence is there for it? How does it address the evidence I've posted in this thread (e.g. post #48)?

[Oniix]

How the hell did this turn into darwinism and evolution?

You guys.

[canuck]

Just to conclude this topic before moving on:

The historical record relating to life on earth suggests that there has been more than one occasion in which there was a major change in the type and number of species populating the planet. These individual periods of change seem to have taken place within a very short span of time; but once established, persisted for millions of years.

There is also evidence suggesting that there have been a number of occasions in which most of life on the planet was wiped out as a result of some cataclysmic event.

After these extinctions, within a very short period of time, the earth was repopulated with an abundance of new species.

To date, no plausible explanation has been forthcoming for any of these events: either the diversification of species; or the speed with which they appeared.

The traditional explanation of a gradual evolution over long periods of time, is not supported by either the available evidence, or by logic. In fact, the rapid repopulation of the earth is clear evidence against the current theory of gradual transitions.

The inference from the evidence that is available, however, suggests that the current biological processes of life are little unchanged from the earliest life forms. Ie: the respiratory systems, digestive systems, nervous systems, etc all seem to function pretty much the same now as they did in the distant past.

There is no evidence supporting the view that primordial life forms times were functionally any more primitive than those life forms that exist today; ie: the ancient species may have been primitive in aesthetic design, but there is no evidence to suggest that their biological systems were any more primitive in function.

This also would seem to be substantiated by their longevity: the trilobites existed, unchanged, for millions of years; as did the dinosaurs. The inference from this is that their biological and physiological functions were far from primitive.

All of this implies that the failure to find transitional forms bridging various species is due to the fact that such transitional forms never did exist.

If we view the development of life in the context of the paradigm stated in my previous post, then an explanation becomes evident.

Specifically, the building blocks of life had been developed before life appeared on earth; ie: the first edition of the “Periodic Table of Genes” was compiled before life appeared on earth.

The earlier life forms could be considered "proof of concept", in which the systems of life were being tested. With each successive mass extinction, and repopulation, the basic concepts were being fine tuned; but it seems that it was mainly the packaging that changed, not the content.

There is a convergence of evidence from a number of scientific disciplines that suggests that the universe in general, and the biosphere of planet earth in particular, is the consequence of a directed process.

Cosmology supports this with its current theories for the formation of the universe; nuclear physics supports this with the current theories of the synthesis of the atomic elements; exo biology supports it with its specifications of the requirements for life. Now, the thesis based on the “Periodic Table of Genes” proposes a conceptual framework for the appearance of life on earth.

All in all, it looks like the universe in general, and Planet Earth in particular is one giant lab experiment.

Given this theory, the obvious questions are: who/what is driving this experiment; who/what is supplying "Genes R Us" with the building blocks of life; who/what is standing in the checkout line with all the bits and pieces in their shopping carts?

[canuck]

Oniix, on Jul 25 2008, 08:47 AM, said:

How the hell did this turn into darwinism and evolution?

You guys.

This discussion took a hard turn when the concept of belief systems came up.

It is generally accepted as true that a person’s view of the world, and his/her interpretation of any facts presented to them are interpreted or tailored to fit their belief system.

As a consequence, once a belief system becomes established it is very hard to dislodge; regardless of any conflicting evidence.

On this board, there has been much debate about the existence and character of spooks. Many of those that reject the notion of spooks, etc. do so because the facts do not fit their belief system, as opposed to the facts being invalid.

The Darwinian theory of the evolution of species is a classic illustration of a belief system prevailing despite the evidence. That’s how this discussion arose.

Now, can we get back to talking about spooks?

[plindboe]

So many misconceptions, it boggles the mind.

canuck, on Jul 26 2008, 05:04 AM, said:

The historical record relating to life on earth suggests that there has been more than one occasion in which there was a major change in the type and number of species populating the planet. These individual periods of change seem to have taken place within a very short span of time; but once established, persisted for millions of years.

There is also evidence suggesting that there have been a number of occasions in which most of life on the planet was wiped out as a result of some cataclysmic event.

After these extinctions, within a very short period of time, the earth was repopulated with an abundance of new species.

To date, no plausible explanation has been forthcoming for any of these events: either the diversification of species; or the speed with which they appeared.

It's easily explained. During mass extinctions countless niches are freed up, which gives other life forms a chance to radiate.

canuck, on Jul 26 2008, 05:04 AM, said:

The traditional explanation of a gradual evolution over long periods of time, is not supported by either the available evidence, or by logic.

I've provided plenty of evidence in this thread. Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it's not there. Oh, and what logic does it violate exactly?

canuck, on Jul 26 2008, 05:04 AM, said:

In fact, the rapid repopulation of the earth is clear evidence against the current theory of gradual transitions.

The Cambrian explosion happened over a period of 70-80 million years. Of course laymen notice the word "explosion" and gets unrealistic ideas in their heads.

canuck, on Jul 26 2008, 05:04 AM, said:

The inference from the evidence that is available, however, suggests that the current biological processes of life are little unchanged from the earliest life forms. Ie: the respiratory systems, digestive systems, nervous systems, etc all seem to function pretty much the same now as they did in the distant past.

There is no evidence supporting the view that primordial life forms times were functionally any more primitive than those life forms that exist today; ie: the ancient species may have been primitive in aesthetic design, but there is no evidence to suggest that their biological systems were any more primitive in function.

The first 2½ billion years of life consisted of single celled organisms. Eukaryotes existed 700 million years before multicellular organisms arose. Biochemically all life is very similar though, as one would expect with common descent.

canuck, on Jul 26 2008, 05:04 AM, said:

This also would seem to be substantiated by their longevity: the trilobites existed, unchanged, for millions of years; as did the dinosaurs. The inference from this is that their biological and physiological functions were far from primitive.

Are you kidding? There have been found 17.000 species of trilobites. Look up dinosaur history as well, they underwent plenty of change.

canuck, on Jul 26 2008, 05:04 AM, said:

All of this implies that the failure to find transitional forms bridging various species is due to the fact that such transitional forms never did exist.

Great. Another layman who have read some Gould quote mines and convinced himself that he knows everything there is to know about paleontology.

Here's some evidence for gradualism. Ah, yes, I forgot, you don't look at evidence you don't agree with.

canuck, on Jul 26 2008, 05:04 AM, said:

If we view the development of life in the context of the paradigm stated in my previous post, then an explanation becomes evident.

Specifically, the building blocks of life had been developed before life appeared on earth; ie: the first edition of the “Periodic Table of Genes” was compiled before life appeared on earth.

The earlier life forms could be considered "proof of concept", in which the systems of life were being tested. With each successive mass extinction, and repopulation, the basic concepts were being fine tuned; but it seems that it was mainly the packaging that changed, not the content.

This is all your fantasy, based on your misunderstandings of science. You've provided no evidence, you've been unable to address the evidence for evolution, you've been unable to address the nested hierarchy, you've provided no way to test your idea.

canuck, on Jul 26 2008, 05:04 AM, said:

There is a convergence of evidence from a number of scientific disciplines that suggests that the universe in general, and the biosphere of planet earth in particular, is the consequence of a directed process.

Cosmology supports this with its current theories for the formation of the universe; nuclear physics supports this with the current theories of the synthesis of the atomic elements; exo biology supports it with its specifications of the requirements for life. Now, the thesis based on the “Periodic Table of Genes” proposes a conceptual framework for the appearance of life on earth.

All in all, it looks like the universe in general, and Planet Earth in particular is one giant lab experiment.

You seem to be nothing but empty assertions. You never provide any evidence or valid arguments, you just assert, assert, assert ad nauseam. How about addressing the evidence I have presented, or answer the questions I posed in my last post?

[plindboe]

canuck, on Jul 26 2008, 05:05 AM, said:

Now, can we get back to talking about spooks?

I'm fine with that. I'm tired of correcting your misunderstandings and having my points, questions and evidence ignored.

I also have to prepare for exam, so I don't have the time anyway.

[Oniix]

That's the first commandment of Ghost Hunters on Ghostvillage!

~ Thou shalt ignore Peter's evidence...

[plindboe]

Oniix, on Jul 29 2008, 11:34 PM, said:

That's the first commandment of Ghost Hunters on Ghostvillage!

~ Thou shalt ignore Peter's evidence...

Hehe.

To be honest, that's not my impression though. I've met plenty of reasonable ghost hunters, whom it's possible to communicate with.

[Oniix]

That all being said, the only real opinion to add to the discussion is this.

No, a lot of poor evidence does not equal good evidence that ghosts indeed exist. It just means a ton of material winds up in the circular filing system.

Most evidence comes from random encounters in unfamiliar settings with less than accurate measuring instruments... not to mention a severe lack in a data-collectiong spectrum.

It's just not possible right now. Add media hype, entertainment, Hollywood, and the argument on ghosts and life after death fall deeper and deeper into the tangible ocean of material reality.

[Rockhauler2k1]

Does alot of poor evidence = good evidence?


No

[tommyhancock]

i wish the evolution discussion could have gone on longer.btw i dont think either one of you is as dumb as the other thinks,i will say that i believe in god as the creator of life.that said,there is plenty more evidence in favor of evolution,darwins theory included,than there is in favor of an all mighty god who created us all and hand crafted every species.evolution is a fact,i realize canucks problem was with darwins theory not evolution as a whole,but still.and we shouldnt think that if one is true the other definitely is not,as i said i am a strong believer in god but i do not by any means believe every single word and story in the bible.my opinion,and i wont use nearly as many big words as anyone above me because you dont need degrees or proper schooling even to grasp this is that...dun dun dun.none of us are anywhere near as close to understanding the universe as we think.although nothing was "proven"i give this one to petey for the simple factthat he attempted to provide evidence.

Oniix, on Jul 31 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

That all being said, the only real opinion to add to the discussion is this.

No, a lot of poor evidence does not equal good evidence that ghosts indeed exist. It just means a ton of material winds up in the circular filing system.

Most evidence comes from random encounters in unfamiliar settings with less than accurate measuring instruments... not to mention a severe lack in a data-collectiong spectrum.

It's just not possible right now. Add media hype, entertainment, Hollywood, and the argument on ghosts and life after death fall deeper and deeper into the tangible ocean of material reality.

bravo. "its just not possible right now" that is the most intelligent thing i have seen written by anyone on this board!mostly because its my own view and im quite the narcissist

to answer the OP.tons of poor evidence does not in any way=good evidence.that said it does equal a ton of evidence none the less.if a picture with a human shaped figure in it is considered poor evidence,one picture doesnt count for much.but if this type of picture pops up a lot and can not be explained,its a good headsup that something creepy may be happening in this place.

[Corey]

I think it really depends on who your talking to. In any para related field you'll have your folks that approach things with a critical mind, and then you'll have your "fans".
The web is full of sites that try and offer up the most ridiculous things as proof of ghosts. These are the fans. Ghost hunting is cool and fun and is just a way station for them on the road to something else.
They watch tv, see a ghost related show and start thinking. "Well I have a digital camera and a video camera. Tomorrow I'll go out and buy an audio recorder. Then I'll start a MySpace page for the new group that I'm going to start. We'll go out to that cemetary that I heard was haunted. We'll take some pics and come home and compare them with what's online. HOLY CRAP! I took some orb pictures too! Let's post them on MySpace!"
And in a short while, it will be on to something else.
It's kind of like the fans of the Twilight movies. When they talk about them it's often times not about the quality of the film, the great direction, the stunning camera angles, or the wonderful acting. It's how hot this one is, or how hot that one is.
They tend to dwell on the superficial. Same thing in the ghost field. It's not "What else could account for this orb?" It's "We got a picture of a real live ghost!"

Does alot of poor evidence equal good evidence? I consider a history of sightings and encounters to be pretty good evidence. Then you have the detractors who will say that people aren't very reliable sources. Again, I guess it really depends on who your talking to.