If Darwin was correct

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by debeest
Xin, you are one incredibly smart dude, but it's obvious that you know next to nothing about the theory of evolution by natural selection. If you really are curious, you should find a good book and learn what the theory really says. It's very different from the picture in your head right now.

Hi there! Long time no see!

I knew something about evolution theory (communist China version dated ~1970). However there are several versions of it Apparently newer version(s) are tougher to crack. So I agreed to shut up on this topic and read from talkorigin.org (if you look hard you can find my post about that). I have had a lot of fun. That is more important than finding whether the evolution theory is correct.

[Provost Harrison]

Thankyou...the molecular biology of it all is as good as indisputable nowadays. I would say trust me on that, but don't, read up on it and stop spouting off about things you don't have the vaguest notion about...

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Thankyou...the molecular biology of it all is as good as indisputable nowadays. I would say trust me on that, but don't, read up on it and stop spouting off about things you don't have the vaguest notion about...

Does modecular biology explain why only human beings do arts? I have yet to see a group of rats carving anyting on stones, nor have I heard cockroaches singing. These are just small examples of uniqueness of human beings.

There are a lot of things about human which could not be explained by any existing theory. So any theory so far are either wrong, or just half truth. Telling half truth sometimes is even worse than simply telling lies.

So, a theory, even correct to an extent, may not be complete. Which means, if you look at it at a wider scope, it fails.

BTW I'm just giving a general concept here, nothing to do with the evolution theory.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
So, a theory, even correct to an extent, may not be complete. Which means, if you look at it at a wider scope, it fails.

While that may be true in certain instances, the fault is very often that of someone trying to extend a theory into some domain which it never claimed to be able to explain, and which nor does it need to explain to remain "correct".

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Xin Yu


Does modecular biology explain why only human beings do arts? I have yet to see a group of rats carving anyting on stones, nor have I heard cockroaches singing. These are just small examples of uniqueness of human beings.

No, and it doesn't have to. I guess that if cockroaches one day get brains as complex as humans, then you will hear them sing if they think that that would be apropriate.

There are a lot of things about human which could not be explained by any existing theory. So any theory so far are either wrong, or just half truth. Telling half truth sometimes is even worse than simply telling lies.

Please tell about those things which there aren't a theory about regarding humans - I haven't heard of such except in warious religious fantasies.

No. Telling lies is always worse than telling "half truth". If you don't know the precise truth it is of course better to tell what can lead to it instead of some blatant lie. Just look at all the lies that religion over time has told ignoring half truths - a great ex is religions claim that the earth was flat.

So, a theory, even correct to an extent, may not be complete. Which means, if you look at it at a wider scope, it fails.

BTW I'm just giving a general concept here, nothing to do with the evolution theory.

And the point is ?

[Whaleboy]

Exactly, I hope you carry this thought to its complete conclusion.

That leads to the cosmological/causal argument which has long been shown absurd (a conclusion that contradicts one of it's premises.

I agree and you are of course right. It does take faith that my existence has meaning.
Just how much is really up to you.

But faith goes back as subjective/hypothetical as the individual consciousness himself therefore, and cannot be communicated, let alone in such a way as an objective god. Secondly, it takes an extra leap to go from faith to god.

I am aware as you said with the word "solecism" that I am introducing an idea that is off the beaten track.

No solipsism is just a possibly conclusion if you use deductive reasoning from Descarte's cogito ergo sum. A singularity in that sense is sloppy terminology.

As much as you might want empirical science to have objective merit. It is always subjected to your subjective interpretation. Therefore it has the merit that you attribute to it.
Ergo singularity of consciousness is the final definition of all existence.

No that goes back to the debate between rationalism and empiricalism. Say faith is based on rationalism which is subjective and empiricalism which relies on a presumption... i.e., that you trust the outside world exists etc. If you didn't you'd just live like Diogenes in his barrel. If you do accept that the outside world exists, then you place science on top of that, but in its own manner, "faith in science" is not a valid attack on scientific method. Solipsism is the most logically consistent yes but as with most cases of deductive reasoning you can't do a whole lot of useful stuff with it. That is if "useful" is to mean application to other people/outside world. Within that, it's possible to create a kind of transcendental "God", but is incommunicable, which therefore precludes religion, social worship or scripture.

Existence, well your best bet for that is existentialist "existence precludes essense", which lends itself to subjectivity, IOW Wittgensteins "What can be said is different to what can be shown" distinction, which is very useful here. It also allows for our presumption that others exist.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
There are a lot of things about human which could not be explained by any existing theory. So any theory so far are either wrong, or just half truth. Telling half truth sometimes is even worse than simply telling lies.

And since everything can be seen as being a tiny part of the Grand Theory of Everything, everything's just a half truth. Let's just believe in God and skip all the "science"?

So, a theory, even correct to an extent, may not be complete. Which means, if you look at it at a wider scope, it fails.

What IW said...

Dictionary.com says about "theory":

A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

(emphasis is mine)
If you extend a theory outside of this specified set of phenomena, it's obviously going to fail.

[Whaleboy]

So, a theory, even correct to an extent, may not be complete. Which means, if you look at it at a wider scope, it fails.

No. You accept a theory on a provisional basis, but that says nothing about the theory itself which should be judged solely on its merits (i.e. evolution = whaleboy orgasm). In other words, we accept that my keyboard is made of plastic, that the Earth orbits the Sun, General Relativity, Evolution etc etc, as provisional theories, but that doesn't mean they are some c0ck and bull crap, and they can even be true in a quantifiable sense (which indeed they are).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
Does modecular biology explain why only human beings do arts?

No, but it doesn't need to. That's not what molecular biology is supposed to do.

Originally posted by Xin Yu
I have yet to see a group of rats carving anyting on stones, nor have I heard cockroaches singing. These are just small examples of uniqueness of human beings.

Birds sing, dolphins communicate by complex untrasound codes, and sharks have sensors for electromagnetic fields. Orangutans aware of the "self" and can grasp some elementary abstract concepts. Parrots can be as intelligent as the average 6-years old person.

The more you look at nature, the less unique we become. IOW, many other species have some of our abilities to a limited extent.

Originally posted by Xin Yu
There are a lot of things about human which could not be explained by any existing theory.

This sounds like a "God of the Gaps" argument.

Originally posted by Xin Yu
So any theory so far are either wrong, or just half truth. Telling half truth sometimes is even worse than simply telling lies.

Again, what's wrong with saying "we don't know?"

Originally posted by Xin Yu
So, a theory, even correct to an extent, may not be complete. Which means, if you look at it at a wider scope, it fails.

Scientific theories are inheritedly limited. They cover only their respective fields. More fundamentally, Scientific theories are models of nature, they are approximations. A prevailing theory are the best we have in explaining the subject of its own field, but it is always open to modifications and replacement.

Science is not religion.

[beingofone]

To partially quote Provost Harrison in a previous post in this thread



" "



"There are three different kinds of brains, the one understands things unassisted, the other understands things when shown by others, and the third understands neither alone nor with the explanations of others. The first kind is most excellent, the second kind also excellent, but the third useless."

Niccolo Machiavelli

[Whaleboy]

So are we to take that as a concession then or what?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by beingofone
"There are three different kinds of brains, the one understands things unassisted, the other understands things when shown by others, and the third understands neither alone nor with the explanations of others. The first kind is most excellent, the second kind also excellent, but the third useless."

Niccolo Machiavelli

That's nice, but that's a blade that can cut both ways.

Hint: in the current case, it's not the evolutionists this blade is cutting.

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
So are we to take that as a concession then or what?

I do not mind if you disagree with me Whaleboy.
I am just saying before you disagree, make sure you understand what you disagree with.
I know this is used over and over by evolutionists but geez.

And to just pick out every single word and disagree because it is a post from me is just not using your head.
If I am right about something at least have the common sense to say " hmm- you could be right". I mean its not going to bite you or something.

BTW- I am not talking about you at all.


"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."- Einstein

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by BlackCat
No. Telling lies is always worse than telling "half truth"

Huh? OK, let's say A tried to kill B but get killed by B for self defense.

Whole truth: B killed A on self defense
Half truth: B killed A
Lie: B did not kill A

Which is the worst?

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Birds sing, dolphins communicate by complex untrasound codes, and sharks have sensors for electromagnetic fields. Orangutans aware of the "self" and can grasp some elementary abstract concepts. Parrots can be as intelligent as the average 6-years old person.

In my post, singing and drawing were two examples of the unique human behavior associated with art. Do you consider your examples enough to show that other species are able to do arts as well?