"Lost Worlds: the Forgotten Creatures of Prehistory"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX7DDrDvC1U


00:00 Who Killed The Giant Insects?
49:56 The Mystery Of Feathered Dragons
01:40:27 The Dawn Of Mammals

  
  
  
  
     Ͼ      Ͽ
         ⌂   
    └---┘
    
  
  

The great thing about science is it’s true whether or not you believe in it.
I don’t ‘believe’ in evolution. I accept it as the best explanation we have for the origin of life on Earth, and the universe.

Trofim Lysenko, Ph.D., a noted Soviet scientist, was a keen supporter of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.  Lots of people believed him.

How many prestigious, well-educated, well-regarded scientists testified at congressional hearings regarding the benefits of smoking cancer sticks?  Eventually, their Truth was regarded as lying for money.


Is Truth an absolute?  Can something be True today and false tomorrow?

Is there a standard regarding when a Truth should or must be discarded?  

Whose Truth do you believe when there are differing explanations for an observed phenomenon?

I find myself lacking charity when confronted with absolutists.

Tao now brown cow...

I’m not an absolutist. I’m a pragmatist. Everything is relative. I’m relatively certain Evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life on earth.
Show me a better explanation and I’ll accept it.
There’s a scale. I’m far to the Left of any religious or non religious demographic.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/02/04/religious-differences-on-the-question-of-evolution/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2023 07:48AM by schrodingerscat.

Actually evolution does not explain the origin of life. It explains the diversity of life, which is not the same thing.

Congrats on missing the point completely.
The point is science is not a system of belief.
It’s a method of uncovering the true nature of reality.
The question in the Pew Poll I linked to is,”Do you agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life.”

Yes I agree.
I think it’s obvious.
Virus are not alive, but carry all the DNA and RNA required for life. They could have combined their DNA and RNA to synthesize life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2023 12:04PM by schrodingerscat.

You said evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life. If you said it once, I could rack it up as a sloppy choice of words. But you said it twice in this thread, so it is apparently what you think. That is an incorrect statement. It not only is not the best explanation, it is not an explanation of the origin of life at all.

And put the goalpost back where you found it.

Evolution does just explain the origin of human life, it explains the origin of all species of life and even non-life, viruses.

Repeating an error does not make it correct. Evolution is changes in existing organisms, not the origin of life.

Congrats on missing the point completely.
My point is merely that all life evolved, from less complex life forms.
No complex life was form was magically “created” by a personal God. Science has plenty of great theories as to how life could have started, or gotten here from other planets via transpermia or abiogenesis, any one of which are better theories than anything in so-called ‘revelation’.

You just reversed your position. Why is it that you cannot do that forthrightly, admitting error, rather than insisting that everyone else was wrong to take what you said seriously?

ETA: Just so you don't forget your inaccurate claims, here are three times you said that evolution is responsible for the origin of life.

7:42 AM: "Evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life on earth."

11:58 AM: "'Do you agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life?' Yes I agree. I think it’s obvious."

11:54 PM: "Evolution does just explain the origin of human life. . ."

You said that that three times and yet here you are telling us you did not.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2023 02:30AM by Lot's Wife.

Congrats on missing my point completely, yet again.
I’ll state it again so even you can comprehend it,

I don’t ‘believe’ in evolution because it’s not a system of belief, it’s a scientific fact.
I trust the scientific method, far more than any other method of revealing the true nature of reality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2023 02:55PM by schrodingerscat.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.
Evolution is a solid proven theory.

This is the reason I don't engage non-scientists on such topics. The conflation of hypothesis and theory with the scientifically uninformed can be maddening. Most of the time in past exchanges I have gotten bogged down with defining and differentiating the two. One of the biggest blowhards on this forum is constantly making this error. Just not worth the extended energy in a forum which is not focused on science, but rather philosophizing.


HH =)

Yes. I feel you. Same here.
The revolving definitions go nowhere.

One of the most cited works on Darwinism and evolutionary theory generally, by both philosophers and biologists, including Richard Dawkins, is Daniel C. Dennett's book, *Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.* In that book, Dennett comments on the role of philosophy in evolutionary theory:

"Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." (p.21)

Here is another quote:

"Philosophical reflection is inherent in any scientific activity, and what is necessary is to guide the experienced researchers to make it explicit, and the inexperienced ones to understand it. Philosophy of science is very important for biology, and biologists will benefit from thinking and reflecting in a philosophical manner."

http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/08/should-biologists-care-at-all-about-philosophy-of-science/

In my experience, both on RfM and from review of the scientific literature, those people who are dismissive of philosophy are those who do not understand it; do not do it well, and often lack basic critical thinking skills.

> In my experience, both on RfM and from review of
> the scientific literature, those people who are
> dismissive of philosophy are those who do not
> understand it; do not do it well, and often lack
> basic critical thinking skills.

Quite the opposite. Philosophy is highly useful. But if the topic is science--does this really need to be said?--philosophy does not overrule science. Will the outcome of rigorous experiments change if the scientist understands Heidegger?

Next, is that blog post all you can offer? It appears as if you are trying to hide the fact that your Dennett book is 28 years old by adding something more recent. Yet your blog post's attempt to explain why philosophy is important for science borders on pathetic. Note these passages:

1) "Philosophical reflection is inherent in any scientific activity, and what is necessary is to guide the experienced researchers to make it explicit, and the inexperienced ones to understand it."

Why? How exactly will philosophy change the outcome of the empirical experiments that comprise science?

2) "Philosophy of science is very important for biology, and biologists will benefit from thinking and reflecting in a philosophical manner.

Why? Your blog article doesn't explain. It's stated as an article of faith.

3) ". . . we want healthcare professionals to know how to deal with patients in the clinic; but do we want them to also have a good understanding of ethics? We think, yes."

I agree. So teach healthcare professionals ethics. But that is not philosophy.

Finally, lets look at your old buddy Dennett. Dennett is a compatibilist, meaning that he accepts determinism as fact but thinks free will can still exist. By contrast, you have told us that you do NOT believe in determinism, which means you do not accept Dennett's fundamental assumption. Why then do you claim that he supports your view?

Furthermore, his need to reconcile his determinism and free will leads to absurdities. In his Freedom Evolves (2004)--do you have any of his books from the current century?--he argues that it doesn't matter if someone suffers a serious handicap because "luck averages out in the long run." That is a truly stupid argument. For bad luck and good luck tend to compound themselves. A child born to an alcoholic mother will have difficulty learning and controlling impulses, which puts that child at greater risk of ending up in prison or on the streets. In life, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The truth is you just threw that blog in to hide the antiquity of your sources and even then you distorted them. Dennett does NOT agree with you. He is a determinist.

>The question in the Pew Poll I linked to is,”Do you agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life.”

Excuse me, you misquoted the poll. Here's the actual wording: ”% who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth”

The PDF with the exact wording of the question in the poll was not available, but that is the legend on the graph in the article you linked.

The statement presupposes that life already existed, and that evolution is the explanation for how humans arose as a lifeform on earth from within that existing life. That is an accurate and reasonable statement. Your misquote is not. Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life, not its origin.

"If the intention of scoring a touchdown was genuine, go ahead and award the six points even if the goalline was not crossed, and then have them line up to attempt the point after."

      --Judic West, trying to be fair

but it's an expression deniers use.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The great thing about science is it’s true
> whether or not you believe in it.

That's not how science works. If it was "true whether you believe it or not", people wouldn't have journals to debate and discuss it.

> I don’t ‘believe’ in evolution. I accept it
> as the best explanation we have for the origin of
> life on Earth, and the universe.

It's the consensus, but as an explanation, it too has problems. We can start with why life would evolve towards certain more complex forms which do not hold significant survival benefits. Resilience is a greater survival advantage than intelligence. There is also a racist/eugenicist undertone to evolutionary theory that scientists fall over backwards to try and pretend doesn't exist. The real dispute is not between science and religion as we're constantly told but hard science and soft science politicization.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The great thing about science is it’s true
> whether or not you believe in it.

That's not how science works. If it was "true whether you believe it or not", people wouldn't have journals to debate and discuss it.

COMMENT: "Science" of itself is not a theory or proposition. Therefore, it is NOT true or false. Propositions and theories, within science (or any other discourse) that make statements about how the world (universe) are what are true or false.

"Someone who "believes in science" presumably believes that science is an effective method for discovering truths about the world. Someone may not believe in science in this respect, and in response someone might say that science *is effective* in this sense whether someone believes it is so effective or not. But, again, science itself is not "true or false."

_______________________________________________

> I don’t ‘believe’ in evolution. I accept it
> as the best explanation we have for the origin of
> life on Earth, and the universe.

"It's the consensus, but as an explanation, it too has problems. We can start with why life would evolve towards certain more complex forms which do not hold significant survival benefits. Resilience is a greater survival advantage than intelligence. There is also a racist/eugenicist undertone to evolutionary theory that scientists fall over backwards to try and pretend doesn't exist. The real dispute is not between science and religion as we're constantly told but hard science and soft science politicization."

COMMENT: Setting aside the point noted by BoJ about the origin of life, there is "evolution" and there is "Evolution." The first reference (small "e") encompasses the 'proven' fact that all life on Earth is related, and the relatedly strong assumption that all organisms on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. Most people believe in "evolution" in this sense, even ID theorists.

However, "Evolution" (capital "E") represents a theory about the *mechanism(s)* that have brought about evolutionary change. Darwinism, and Neo-Darwinism, represent such a theory, whose basic principles are random genetic variation and natural selection. Darwinism as a theory of biological change has been largely shown to be false, or at best grossly incomplete, depending upon your point of view and your academic commitments. This is controversial, primarily because die-hard Darwinists and Neo-Darwinists are resistant to change their spots in the face of the demands of modern science.

To understand all this, I suggest three books, (1) James A. Shapiro, *Evolution: A View From the 21st Century* (2011); Jerry Fodor and Missimo Piattelli-Palmarini, *What Darwin Got Wrong* (2010) and Michael Denton, *Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis* (2016). Also, any number of books regarding "Evolutionary Development (evo-devo) are helpful.

Finally, as to your specific objections, they strike me as too vague and undeveloped for comment.

Science attempts to create increasingly accurate approximations of reality.

Regarding what is "truth", unfortunately that is a convoluted and long winded matter in its own right. A starting point might be Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

-------

Regarding the "mainstreaming" of Mormonism, I think the term watering down is likewise relevant.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The great thing about science is it’s true
> whether or not you believe in it.

A gross oversimplification and generalization. Science is an interpretative theoretical framework witb multiple hypotheses for many things, not a monolithic dogma.

How is this relevant to my salvation?

Do you believe in the doctrine of Recyclation?

"Well, do you, punk?"
--Harry Callahan