The hobbit stuff is all fascinating, but I keep waiting for it to be revealed as a hoax :D
Also, I wish that BBC video hadn't played up the idea that evolution was this clean ladder from ape to man and that the hobbit discovery somehow shattered that. The hobbits are a new discovery, yeah, but scientists have known for ages that humans and their predecessors overlapped in evolution. That "ascent of man" image we always see promotes the hugely misleading idea that the evolution of modern humans was some kind of "goal."
Naw, we're just a well-adapted branch of primates.
Yeah, it does seem odd that that the video specifically says "this discovery shatters" the clean ladder concept since the idea was abandoned by the scientific community quite some time ago.
Now, I think most people walking around still wrongly have the classic, clean ladder concept of man's evolution in mind. This hobbit case, to the common man, being much more dramatic and entertaining, probably goes much further in shattering the clean ladder concept in the minds of those NOT in the scientific community.
Oh, and the evolution of modern humans being some kind of "goal" hasn't really been proven OR disproven as it's kind of difficult to scientifically measure the intent or existence of any sort of consciousness that may have had that goal in mind. So I suppose whether it's "hugely misleading" or not sort of depends on your own specific view point.
I really have to call the way this article was written into question. There is very little background given on the species and it does not acknowledge the general acceptance of the process of evolution to be one of mosaic evolution: there are many species that humans could have descended from, they may have taken parts of many species, and many species may have died out.
Admittedly, I did not watch the video and maybe it was explained better, but the fact that they neglect to articulate several other theories about homo florensis (like in addition to island dwarfism they may have also/instead have been victims of microcephaly or another genetic mutation that would have been exacerbated by the isolation on the island of Flores) really pisses me off. Omission of information gives people an image of evolution that is flawed and easy to misinterpret. This, in turn, allows it to be dismissed.
I may be angrier than reasonable because this is what I study. I just wish mass media would realize their role in informing the public about scientific discoveries may be one of primary source for a lot of people and stop doing such a shitty job. I would also like to extend that to the history channel, which keeps featuring stories as fact instead of interpretation.
And p.s., are they saying that pygmies are another species?!
"Well, since short of divine intervention I can't imagine how we could ever know such a thing, I'll just have to stick with provable observations."
Exactly... In the absence of provable observations in favor or opposed to there being a goal, it is not misleading to suggest it as one possibility.
The fact is, we don't know, and pretending we do (in either direction) is what's misleading. O_o
To propose a goal to human evolution as an actual theory would require some sort of evidence, which we don't have. Thus, the problem with Intelligent Design as a scientific theory rather than possibility. It's the same problem with assuming without evidence that there is no guidance, plan, or intent.
Neither idea is sound science due to a lack of provable observations, but both are valid possibilities.
>>Neither idea is sound science due to a lack of provable observations, but both are valid possibilities.
Wait, whuh? It's absolutely sound science to move forward based on falsifiability. In fact, science requires that it be possible to disprove claims. That's what science is. And what's observable is that evolution is a natural process that occurs among all living things, not that it's an intelligently guided force. Unless evidence arises to indicate otherwise, it's no more useful to the scientific community to presuppose an intelligent hand behind evolution than to say gravity is caused by elves.
"And what's observable is that evolution is a natural process that occurs among all living things"
Yes, that's observable...
"not that it's an intelligently guided force"
I'm not entirely sure how that's observable. Nor am I sure how the two are mutually exclusive.
"no more useful to the scientific community to presuppose an intelligent hand behind evolution than to say gravity is caused by elves"
There does seem to some organized mathematical order to the universe, which gives the impression of intent to many, even in the scientific community -gasp! So it really isn't as out of left field as your example makes it seem. Since Elves causing gravity is a case that doesn't even leave the impression of Elves, giving no reason to look for Elves, your example doesn't really fit. A better example might be seeing Nick with wet clothes and presupposing that he may have been swimming in a lake despite his appearance giving scores of other possible impressions.
An impression is far, far from truth, as we all know anytime we look at the Earth, which gives an impression of being flat when viewed from the ground. So, with no way to test for intent, we are left with no more than a subjective impression. That subjective impression is in NO WAY a valid basis for a theory, but it works just fine for a hypothesis basis, just like the subjective impression that the mathematical order does not indicate intent is a perfectly good basis for a hypothesis.
Now, a hypothesis and a theory are very different things. Neither works for a theory since a theory requires empirical data that we don't have. And like you mentioned, we aren't likely to have it short of divine intervention.
I'm suggesting we simply don't know and we shouldn't pretend that we do on the matter of intent.
Teaching Creationism, Intelligent Design, or Atheism as proven fact would be incorrect, but evolution has more than enough evidence behind it to be accepted theory, and that's a different story.
I'm not entirely sure how that's observable. Nor am I sure how the two are mutually exclusive."
If you can tell me why it is observable or why they are mutually exclusive, I would be happy to listen. I'm not closed minded to additional information altering my views.
B) Elves cause gravity might need to be a blog tag.
And, sure, you could say some godlike being is behind ANY process that occurs in nature. But until some evidence appears to indicate such guidance, it's a useless scientific idea.
Which doesn't mean it's a useless spiritual idea. Just scientific.
>>There does seem to some organized mathematical order to the universe, which gives the impression of intent to many, even in the scientific community -gasp!
Err, that sounds like fringe science to me, but show me a resource and I'll look into it. I'd be willing to bet the group promoting this represents less than 1% of the scientific community. Though it might represent a decent portion of the religious community looking to shoehorn religion into science.
>>An impression is far, far from truth, as we all know anytime we look at the Earth, which gives an impression of being flat when viewed from the ground.
Luckily, scientists don't work based on impressions and there are several ways to gather good evidence that the earth is round even without looking down from space:
>>I'm suggesting we simply don't know and we shouldn't pretend that we do on the matter of intent.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not presumptuous to say there's no Santa Claus just because I can't disprove his existence. The burder of proof lies with the party making the claim and until better evidence of intelligent design becomes apparent, it's got no role in the scientific world.
Incidentally, this WAS touched on in Carl Sagan's book, Contact, though not the movie. The idea, if I recall, was that there was a sort of "creator's fingerprint" to be discovered in patterns deep within the calculations of pi.>>Teaching Creationism, Intelligent Design, or Atheism as proven fact would be incorrect...
If you're using science as your guiding principle atheism IS a logical conclusion. The vast majority of scientists would agree there's no good evidence for a god or gods, and science requires evidence to test. If you choose to believe without evidence, that's fine, but that's faith, not science.
Thanks for the links and the time you took. I really appreciate you taking the time to seriously dispute my view rather than offhandedly dismissing it. You've done a great job showing evidence for your case, and I absolutely accept it as a logical and sound conclusion. I just still don't feel that your case affects mine.
I admitted earlier that evolution is observable. What I'm saying is not observable is the lack or presence of intent. I'm also saying that those observations do not rule out intent.
>>>>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not presumptuous to say there's no Santa Claus just because I can't disprove his existence. The burder of proof lies with the party making the claim and until better evidence of intelligent design becomes apparent, it's got no role in the scientific world.
Lol, I'm not putting forth a scientific claim nor saying something belongs in the scientific world. In fact, I specifically said my views should NOT be.
>>>>>Though it might represent a decent portion of the religious community looking to shoehorn religion into science.
Yeah, I'm not talking about the psuedo-scientists that put forth Inteligent Design as sound science. I'm talking about people who don't dismiss the idea of a higher power as a non-scientific possibility. I'm talking about rightly dismissing it as unsound science while seeing it as possible due to the unprovability of it's presence or absence. The people who might say, "Yeah, all the order in the universe makes one wonder, and I suppose it's technically possible, but there's no scientific evidence for it."
>>>>And, sure, you could say some godlike being is behind ANY process that occurs in nature. But until some evidence appears to indicate such guidance, it's a useless scientific idea.
That's exactly what I'm saying is a possibility. I never claimed it was scientifically useful or likely, just possible as it doesn't contradict any evidence.
>>>>Luckily, scientists don't work based on impressions and there are several ways to gather good evidence that the earth is round even without looking down from space
I never suggested anybody WORK with impressions beyond using them to suggest a hypothesis prior to gathering data. Which is the basis for tons of starting points in science.
>>>>If you're using science as your guiding principle atheism IS a logical conclusion.
I agree. It's one. But it's also a logical conclusion to say that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence which is a cardinal guiding principal of science.
.........
I think you may be misunderstanding where I'm coming from in trying to show my views are not scientifically useful. I admit they aren't.
I'm in no way claiming that there is ANY scientific evidence to shore up a belief in any intent. I'm also not claiming that there is anything fallible about Atheism as a possible framework. I'm not trying to prove or evidence anything. I'm saying that there is not enough evidence to put forth Atheism as an accepted fact the way evolution is accepted fact, thus, it doesn't disprove my beliefs.
I'm merely saying that it's also not sound science to pick any viewpoint as the ONE proven answer on a subject with no evidence. If there were no impressions to give my views a hypothetical starting point or evidence to dispute them, I would say dismiss my views. But there are impressions and no evidence to prove those impressions wrong.
At the root of it, all I'm saying that your use of the word, "mislead" implies that belief in intent is belief in something flatly untrue. And that's just not proven fact.
I assumed when you said misleading, you implied people might be lead to think intent was possible. And that would be misleading since it's patently untrue.
I disagreed and started this whole thing.
Maybe when you said misleading, you meant that people would be lead to think intent was scientifically sound. And that would be misleading since it's patently untrue.
I agree and feel mildly retarded if that's the case.
i am home- wow. i am not even going to touch this until dave responds to confirm/ repute d3's potential retardation.
i saw some issues with the article (jamie's issues, plus the clean ladder thing) but i had nooooo idea i was posting the fuel for such a grand debate. i just thought it was mildly interesting... and i was bored... and it gave me an excuse to post something referencing the bravest little hobbit of them all.
Damn, D3, you know Saturday's my "all day at work" day - ain't got time to be postin' long-ass responses on the blog! >_<
That said, I started to type a response when I got home and then my browser locked up, killing it. So I went and played Rock Band for a few hours. That was pretty fun, and I discovered that playing drums on Deep Purple's "Space Truckin'" is just a blast.
Wait, what were we talking about?
Evolution? Retardation?
Something like that.
At this point I'm a little lost in the whole conversation and it'd probably be easier to continue it in person, but you were asking about that first post where I talked about the misleading “ascent of man” evolution chart they showed in the video (the thing where we see apes leading to cavemen leading to modern man). Jamie can, I’m sure, give you a better breakdown of what’s wrong with it – I don’t even consider myself a science dabbler – but Misleading Thing #1 about it is that it indicates a clean, ladder-like progression from one species to the next, when in fact there are lots of overlaps and side-branches in evolution. We already know lots of early hominids shared time on the earth together, so I’m not sure what’s supposed to be so shattering about the hobbits having been in the mix, too. Misleading Thing #2 (and I think this was what confused you) is that the chart seems to suggest that modern man is some kind of evolutionary goal post. But evolution doesn’t have goals, it’s just a process.
I don’t know if that answers your question, but I do recommend “Space Truckin’” on the drums.
Lol, sorry, I made my question on Friday, about an hour after you posted, so it didn't cross my mind to consider your Saturday work schedule. My bad.
"Misleading Thing #1 about it is that it indicates a clean, ladder-like progression..."
We agree.
"Misleading Thing #2 (and I think this was what confused you) is that the chart seems to suggest that modern man is some kind of evolutionary goal post. But evolution doesn’t have goals, it’s just a process."
I'm not sure if we agree or disagree, so I ask for clarification...
"evolution doesn't have goals, it’s just a process."
Specifically, do mean to say:
A) There is absolutely no scientific reason to believe there is intent within the natural process of evolution, so assuming there is no intent is sound science. Saying that some godlike being could be behind ANY natural process is technically possible but scientifically unprovable and useless to science.
If that's the case, we agree, and I obviously misunderstood the use of the word, mislead. I will add the "D3 is wrong" tag to this post myself, lol.
Or...
B) Saying some godlike being is behind ANY process that occurs in nature is not just useless... but provably impossible and wrong.
If this is the case, I disagree. We probably won't come to a resolution, and it's probably best to stop trying and move on to something else to talk about.
>>Specifically, do you mean to say: >> >>A) There is absolutely no scientific reason to believe there is intent within the natural process of evolution, so assuming there is no intent is sound science. Saying that some godlike being could be behind ANY natural process is technically possible but scientifically unprovable and useless to science.
Yes.
Unless we get a burning bush to drop some knowledge on us, or, like the chick in Contact, we discover "God's fingerprints" coded in pi or something, intent is only something for the faithful to discuss. It's perfectly fine for scientists to have faith, but it shouldn't play a role in their science.
Ah, allow me to apologize for the misunderstanding and thank you for your patience and civility.
I agree with you... And this whole exchange has been pointless, lol. To be honest, it was getting old, and I'm glad its over. I'll add the d3 is wrong tag later when I'm not using my phone to browse the blog.
The hobbit stuff is all fascinating, but I keep waiting for it to be revealed as a hoax :D
ReplyDeleteAlso, I wish that BBC video hadn't played up the idea that evolution was this clean ladder from ape to man and that the hobbit discovery somehow shattered that. The hobbits are a new discovery, yeah, but scientists have known for ages that humans and their predecessors overlapped in evolution. That "ascent of man" image we always see promotes the hugely misleading idea that the evolution of modern humans was some kind of "goal."
Naw, we're just a well-adapted branch of primates.
Also: ups for casually referencing Leonard Nimoy's classic Hobbit song!
ReplyDeleteYeah, it does seem odd that that the video specifically says "this discovery shatters" the clean ladder concept since the idea was abandoned by the scientific community quite some time ago.
ReplyDeleteNow, I think most people walking around still wrongly have the classic, clean ladder concept of man's evolution in mind. This hobbit case, to the common man, being much more dramatic and entertaining, probably goes much further in shattering the clean ladder concept in the minds of those NOT in the scientific community.
Oh, and the evolution of modern humans being some kind of "goal" hasn't really been proven OR disproven as it's kind of difficult to scientifically measure the intent or existence of any sort of consciousness that may have had that goal in mind. So I suppose whether it's "hugely misleading" or not sort of depends on your own specific view point.
>>Oh, and the evolution of modern humans being some kind of "goal" hasn't really been proven OR disproven...
ReplyDeleteWell, since short of divine intervention I can't imagine how we could ever know such a thing, I'll just have to stick with provable observations.
I really have to call the way this article was written into question. There is very little background given on the species and it does not acknowledge the general acceptance of the process of evolution to be one of mosaic evolution: there are many species that humans could have descended from, they may have taken parts of many species, and many species may have died out.
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, I did not watch the video and maybe it was explained better, but the fact that they neglect to articulate several other theories about homo florensis (like in addition to island dwarfism they may have also/instead have been victims of microcephaly or another genetic mutation that would have been exacerbated by the isolation on the island of Flores) really pisses me off. Omission of information gives people an image of evolution that is flawed and easy to misinterpret. This, in turn, allows it to be dismissed.
I may be angrier than reasonable because this is what I study. I just wish mass media would realize their role in informing the public about scientific discoveries may be one of primary source for a lot of people and stop doing such a shitty job. I would also like to extend that to the history channel, which keeps featuring stories as fact instead of interpretation.
And p.s., are they saying that pygmies are another species?!
Wow, that was a rant
ReplyDelete"Well, since short of divine intervention I can't imagine how we could ever know such a thing, I'll just have to stick with provable observations."
ReplyDeleteExactly... In the absence of provable observations in favor or opposed to there being a goal, it is not misleading to suggest it as one possibility.
The fact is, we don't know, and pretending we do (in either direction) is what's misleading. O_o
To propose a goal to human evolution as an actual theory would require some sort of evidence, which we don't have. Thus, the problem with Intelligent Design as a scientific theory rather than possibility. It's the same problem with assuming without evidence that there is no guidance, plan, or intent.
Neither idea is sound science due to a lack of provable observations, but both are valid possibilities.
>>Neither idea is sound science due to a lack of provable observations, but both are valid possibilities.
ReplyDeleteWait, whuh? It's absolutely sound science to move forward based on falsifiability. In fact, science requires that it be possible to disprove claims. That's what science is. And what's observable is that evolution is a natural process that occurs among all living things, not that it's an intelligently guided force. Unless evidence arises to indicate otherwise, it's no more useful to the scientific community to presuppose an intelligent hand behind evolution than to say gravity is caused by elves.
>>Admittedly, I did not watch the video and maybe it was explained better...
ReplyDeleteYeah, you might not want to watch the video, Jamie. It might make your head pop :)
"And what's observable is that evolution is a natural process that occurs among all living things"
ReplyDeleteYes, that's observable...
"not that it's an intelligently guided force"
I'm not entirely sure how that's observable. Nor am I sure how the two are mutually exclusive.
"no more useful to the scientific community to presuppose an intelligent hand behind evolution than to say gravity is caused by elves"
There does seem to some organized mathematical order to the universe, which gives the impression of intent to many, even in the scientific community -gasp! So it really isn't as out of left field as your example makes it seem. Since Elves causing gravity is a case that doesn't even leave the impression of Elves, giving no reason to look for Elves, your example doesn't really fit. A better example might be seeing Nick with wet clothes and presupposing that he may have been swimming in a lake despite his appearance giving scores of other possible impressions.
An impression is far, far from truth, as we all know anytime we look at the Earth, which gives an impression of being flat when viewed from the ground. So, with no way to test for intent, we are left with no more than a subjective impression. That subjective impression is in NO WAY a valid basis for a theory, but it works just fine for a hypothesis basis, just like the subjective impression that the mathematical order does not indicate intent is a perfectly good basis for a hypothesis.
Now, a hypothesis and a theory are very different things. Neither works for a theory since a theory requires empirical data that we don't have. And like you mentioned, we aren't likely to have it short of divine intervention.
I'm suggesting we simply don't know and we shouldn't pretend that we do on the matter of intent.
Teaching Creationism, Intelligent Design, or Atheism as proven fact would be incorrect, but evolution has more than enough evidence behind it to be accepted theory, and that's a different story.
lol, additional comments...
ReplyDeleteA) ""not that it's an intelligently guided force"
I'm not entirely sure how that's observable. Nor am I sure how the two are mutually exclusive."
If you can tell me why it is observable or why they are mutually exclusive, I would be happy to listen. I'm not closed minded to additional information altering my views.
B) Elves cause gravity might need to be a blog tag.
>>I'm not entirely sure how that's observable. Nor am I sure how the two are mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeletehttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b6
And, sure, you could say some godlike being is behind ANY process that occurs in nature. But until some evidence appears to indicate such guidance, it's a useless scientific idea.
Which doesn't mean it's a useless spiritual idea. Just scientific.
>>There does seem to some organized mathematical order to the universe, which gives the impression of intent to many, even in the scientific community -gasp!
Err, that sounds like fringe science to me, but show me a resource and I'll look into it. I'd be willing to bet the group promoting this represents less than 1% of the scientific community. Though it might represent a decent portion of the religious community looking to shoehorn religion into science.
>>An impression is far, far from truth, as we all know anytime we look at the Earth, which gives an impression of being flat when viewed from the ground.
Luckily, scientists don't work based on impressions and there are several ways to gather good evidence that the earth is round even without looking down from space:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/415/you-say-the-earth-is-round-prove-it
>>I'm suggesting we simply don't know and we shouldn't pretend that we do on the matter of intent.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not presumptuous to say there's no Santa Claus just because I can't disprove his existence. The burder of proof lies with the party making the claim and until better evidence of intelligent design becomes apparent, it's got no role in the scientific world.
Incidentally, this WAS touched on in Carl Sagan's book, Contact, though not the movie. The idea, if I recall, was that there was a sort of "creator's fingerprint" to be discovered in patterns deep within the calculations of pi.>>Teaching Creationism, Intelligent Design, or Atheism as proven fact would be incorrect...
If you're using science as your guiding principle atheism IS a logical conclusion. The vast majority of scientists would agree there's no good evidence for a god or gods, and science requires evidence to test. If you choose to believe without evidence, that's fine, but that's faith, not science.
Thanks for the links and the time you took. I really appreciate you taking the time to seriously dispute my view rather than offhandedly dismissing it. You've done a great job showing evidence for your case, and I absolutely accept it as a logical and sound conclusion. I just still don't feel that your case affects mine.
ReplyDelete>>>>>http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b6
I admitted earlier that evolution is observable. What I'm saying is not observable is the lack or presence of intent. I'm also saying that those observations do not rule out intent.
>>>>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not presumptuous to say there's no Santa Claus just because I can't disprove his existence. The burder of proof lies with the party making the claim and until better evidence of intelligent design becomes apparent, it's got no role in the scientific world.
Lol, I'm not putting forth a scientific claim nor saying something belongs in the scientific world. In fact, I specifically said my views should NOT be.
>>>>>Though it might represent a decent portion of the religious community looking to shoehorn religion into science.
Yeah, I'm not talking about the psuedo-scientists that put forth Inteligent Design as sound science. I'm talking about people who don't dismiss the idea of a higher power as a non-scientific possibility. I'm talking about rightly dismissing it as unsound science while seeing it as possible due to the unprovability of it's presence or absence. The people who might say, "Yeah, all the order in the universe makes one wonder, and I suppose it's technically possible, but there's no scientific evidence for it."
>>>>And, sure, you could say some godlike being is behind ANY process that occurs in nature. But until some evidence appears to indicate such guidance, it's a useless scientific idea.
That's exactly what I'm saying is a possibility. I never claimed it was scientifically useful or likely, just possible as it doesn't contradict any evidence.
>>>>Luckily, scientists don't work based on impressions and there are several ways to gather good evidence that the earth is round even without looking down from space
I never suggested anybody WORK with impressions beyond using them to suggest a hypothesis prior to gathering data. Which is the basis for tons of starting points in science.
>>>>If you're using science as your guiding principle atheism IS a logical conclusion.
I agree. It's one. But it's also a logical conclusion to say that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence which is a cardinal guiding principal of science.
.........
I think you may be misunderstanding where I'm coming from in trying to show my views are not scientifically useful. I admit they aren't.
I'm in no way claiming that there is ANY scientific evidence to shore up a belief in any intent. I'm also not claiming that there is anything fallible about Atheism as a possible framework. I'm not trying to prove or evidence anything. I'm saying that there is not enough evidence to put forth Atheism as an accepted fact the way evolution is accepted fact, thus, it doesn't disprove my beliefs.
I'm merely saying that it's also not sound science to pick any viewpoint as the ONE proven answer on a subject with no evidence. If there were no impressions to give my views a hypothetical starting point or evidence to dispute them, I would say dismiss my views. But there are impressions and no evidence to prove those impressions wrong.
At the root of it, all I'm saying that your use of the word, "mislead" implies that belief in intent is belief in something flatly untrue. And that's just not proven fact.
ooooh... shiiiit... I might be a retard.
ReplyDeleteI assumed when you said misleading, you implied people might be lead to think intent was possible. And that would be misleading since it's patently untrue.
I disagreed and started this whole thing.
Maybe when you said misleading, you meant that people would be lead to think intent was scientifically sound. And that would be misleading since it's patently untrue.
I agree and feel mildly retarded if that's the case.
uh... is that the case, Dave?
ReplyDeleteHello?
ReplyDeleteDave? Anybody home? Hellooooooooo?
ReplyDeletei am home- wow. i am not even going to touch this until dave responds to confirm/ repute d3's potential retardation.
ReplyDeletei saw some issues with the article (jamie's issues, plus the clean ladder thing) but i had nooooo idea i was posting the fuel for such a grand debate. i just thought it was mildly interesting... and i was bored... and it gave me an excuse to post something referencing the bravest little hobbit of them all.
Er... ? Dave?
ReplyDeleteDamn, D3, you know Saturday's my "all day at work" day - ain't got time to be postin' long-ass responses on the blog! >_<
ReplyDeleteThat said, I started to type a response when I got home and then my browser locked up, killing it. So I went and played Rock Band for a few hours. That was pretty fun, and I discovered that playing drums on Deep Purple's "Space Truckin'" is just a blast.
Wait, what were we talking about?
Evolution? Retardation?
Something like that.
At this point I'm a little lost in the whole conversation and it'd probably be easier to continue it in person, but you were asking about that first post where I talked about the misleading “ascent of man” evolution chart they showed in the video (the thing where we see apes leading to cavemen leading to modern man). Jamie can, I’m sure, give you a better breakdown of what’s wrong with it – I don’t even consider myself a science dabbler – but Misleading Thing #1 about it is that it indicates a clean, ladder-like progression from one species to the next, when in fact there are lots of overlaps and side-branches in evolution. We already know lots of early hominids shared time on the earth together, so I’m not sure what’s supposed to be so shattering about the hobbits having been in the mix, too. Misleading Thing #2 (and I think this was what confused you) is that the chart seems to suggest that modern man is some kind of evolutionary goal post. But evolution doesn’t have goals, it’s just a process.
I don’t know if that answers your question, but I do recommend “Space Truckin’” on the drums.
Lol, sorry, I made my question on Friday, about an hour after you posted, so it didn't cross my mind to consider your Saturday work schedule. My bad.
ReplyDelete"Misleading Thing #1 about it is that it indicates a clean, ladder-like progression..."
We agree.
"Misleading Thing #2 (and I think this was what confused you) is that the chart seems to suggest that modern man is some kind of evolutionary goal post. But evolution doesn’t have goals, it’s just a process."
I'm not sure if we agree or disagree, so I ask for clarification...
"evolution doesn't have goals, it’s just a process."
Specifically, do mean to say:
A) There is absolutely no scientific reason to believe there is intent within the natural process of evolution, so assuming there is no intent is sound science. Saying that some godlike being could be behind ANY natural process is technically possible but scientifically unprovable and useless to science.
If that's the case, we agree, and I obviously misunderstood the use of the word, mislead. I will add the "D3 is wrong" tag to this post myself, lol.
Or...
B) Saying some godlike being is behind ANY process that occurs in nature is not just useless... but provably impossible and wrong.
If this is the case, I disagree. We probably won't come to a resolution, and it's probably best to stop trying and move on to something else to talk about.
>>Specifically, do you mean to say:
ReplyDelete>>
>>A) There is absolutely no scientific reason to believe there is intent within the natural process of evolution, so assuming there is no intent is sound science. Saying that some godlike being could be behind ANY natural process is technically possible but scientifically unprovable and useless to science.
Yes.
Unless we get a burning bush to drop some knowledge on us, or, like the chick in Contact, we discover "God's fingerprints" coded in pi or something, intent is only something for the faithful to discuss. It's perfectly fine for scientists to have faith, but it shouldn't play a role in their science.
Ah, allow me to apologize for the misunderstanding and thank you for your patience and civility.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you... And this whole exchange has been pointless, lol. To be honest, it was getting old, and I'm glad its over. I'll add the d3 is wrong tag later when I'm not using my phone to browse the blog.
Ha, no wonder I got so confused what we were debating!
ReplyDeleteBut it's all good.