OSDev.org

When a discussion gets as detailed as this one, I always tend to quote "flamewar-style", i.e. taking single sentences and commenting on them.

Please do not confuse form with function, here. If we were face to face, we'd probably have a stimulated but completely friendly discussion going. It's just that I like to answer concretely, in response to specific statements or questions, instead of writing a semi-monologous "meta-answer".

Omega wrote:This is based on your own POV.

Everybody has a POV. Mine is based on high school and university studies, experiments, and experience. I'm not just "swimming with the mainstream" either - I've never done that carelessly, as my high school Biology teacher would testify. I still vividly remember the two of us arguing in class on the subject of "are animals intelligent" for over an hour...

What you think you see in your children may just as well be an illusory correlation, like assuming a polar bear's hair must be white, but in reality it is not white, it is clear; you just didn't know the facts, so you based what you thought was rational (though wrong) in the place of fact, but on accident. Which is why laymen should never debate a scientific matter.

Are you including yourself in the group of "laymen"? I admit I never graduated in Biology, but I surely do feel competent to discuss the issue. To follow up on your example, I learned enough to not assume a polar bear's hair is white merely because it appears white. I know about refraction, I know for example that a peacock's feathers aren't colored either (not the least because I had them under the microscope).

That is just a naive example, but I think it highlights my point: Please, tell me what distinguishes the two of us so fundamentally that your studies made you "see the truth" while mine only blinded me?

I hardly consider attending a lecture as qualifying you as an expert, for 1) you may have taken notes, but exactly what percentage of it does your mind currently posses? Your college studies on this subject stopped 12 years ago. You can say as a parent your education of human behavior has carried on steadily, but I would find that hard as you haven't the time to devote to truly studying the child's behavior, nor have you tested the child; or at least you failed to mention that.

So whoever is more fanatical in his research is automatically right because no-one else can know as much as he? I challenge that claim.

Perhaps I have remained liberal of mind, open to take in other parts of life, learn about other subjects, hear other standpoints, always questioning what I know and extending my knowledge, instead of getting obsessed with a specific idea?

I always considered it a bad thing when someone thinks he has found "a truth", and sets out trying to prove it, to the point of denying others the right of discussion. The scientific mind is happy either way - when a hypothesis is proven or falsified - because it means you know more.

And if no proof for or against something can be found, most times it is better to let it rest as "unproven" and open your mind to all the other wonders around you. I happen to know some things about astrophysics, nuclear physics, martial arts, and history - all of them fascinating subjects I would have missed if I had let a single subject dominate my mind...

For example, you may have noticed that you had to teach your children not to put things in their mouths lest they eat something awful.
If this is true, then you have instilled in your child the seed of a more complexed notion, boundaries perhaps. You may not have noticed just how much you are influencing your child's development/identity nor foreseen just how similar you and your children will be in time.

I may not. I think I have, however. Same goes for my wife, who has studied Sociology. We're pretty self-reflected in how we raise our kids.

I don't see why I should change my point of view based on seemingly stale knowledge of a subject that I am actively studying.

See above on "I see the light, you are blind". You sound pretty cavalier here.

I take the same position as Stephen Hawking's in relation to his Origin of the Universe Theory, as I do not think that macro-evolution exists. As for micro-evolution I have already taken a stand for that side as I totally believe in micro-evolution. This is what is beautiful about God's design because it was made with the ability to adapt, so that the living creatures of the earth could survive the Ice Age, and Deforestation, diet change, elevation change, etc.

Do I get this correct - you believe that God made life in a way that allows species to adapt to an Ice Age, but you do not believe that this adaption eventually makes new species appear, that any new species happened because God willed it so?

That's a school of thought I have severe problems with to understand. And before you ask, no, I'm not of an Abrahamic persuasion. I can't really see how you could accept the short-term, but do not believe it might have long-term impacts...

You already have the primitive brain even before the aforementioned and that controls the bodies major things like the breathing, movement, etc. Perhaps lurking in here is the creatures primal emotions such as mad, glad, sad.

Which are... fake?

I really don't get what your standpoint is, exactly.

It's usually between this age when a child will begin demonstrating parental attachment classified as the Oedipus Complex. [...] Furthermore, and lastly, your theory doesn't support cases involving multiple personalities (or bi-polar disorder), phobias, mental disorders, etc.

Oedipus Complex is a concept from Freud's psychoanalysis. Which happens to fail on psychic disorders... where are you coming from, here?

Your theory doesn't support homosexuality, can you tell me how living creatures who need the opposite sex to procreate can somehow evolve to prefer the same sex? No you cannot at all explain that, because it doesn't suit the macro-evolution myth.

It happens in some specimens of a species (not only humans and apes but other animals too). Obviously it is a severe evolutional disadvantage, which is why no species will ever "evolve to prefer the same sex". (Besides, in an open and enlightened discussion, I strongly object against calling a so-far unfalsified hypothesis a "myth").

Science as a whole isn't sure about the cause(s) of homo- or bisexuality, so I find it rather daring to suggest a genetic cause - which you do if you discuss it in the course of evolution.

Let's turn this around: If you believe in ID, what is your explanation for homo- or bisexuality?

Therefore, emotions are fake. I don't know how else to describe it, because it is nothing more than an electro-signal interpreted by different parts of the brain which are then recognized somewhere else and you act upon it either out of confusion or from experience.

The alternative would be that emotions are within the "soul". Which I do happen to believe in, but which no-one has found any proof for so far, either.

Is it really important whether emotions are a mixture of neural impulses and hormones or some tingling in your aura, as long as they are genuine? I mean, that's what makes a character, in human or animal, isn't it?

...and then around your mid twenties you start taking more control over who you are. Thus, later in your life the more advanced your emotions become such as developing Mysophobia.

*shakes head*

Phobias are "advanced"?

Parents have a huge influence on what a person you become, and it can take many years for you to "take more control" if you don't like the direction your parents have been nudging you. But that doesn't mean your emotions are less advanced as a child. Less directed, more confused, less controlled, yes. But I would say a child has even stronger and more varied emotions than any (normal) grown-up, simply because they don't have the ratio to hold their feelings in check. Which goes somewhat contrary to what I feel is your angle on this subject.

Solar raises some very good points here and I'll pick up on one of them, the concept of homosexuality.
Yes, it is a severe disadvantage as it stops the said person from reproducing and therefore passing on his genes.
Therefore under 'normal' circumstances, this would be evolved out.
There are quite a few ideas on what causes homosexuality.
There is the idea that it is a conscious choice.
In which case, this is out of the hands of evolution.
But there are also the ideas that it is a biological problem.
By the way, I believe that it is in fact biologically based.
There are three main schools of thought in the idea that it is biologically based...
1) Gene that causes homosexuality:
In this case for the gene to still be around after so much time, the gene would either have to be recessive or it is caused by a mutation, that has a relatively high chance of occurring.
2) that it is an epigenetic phenomenon, in which case again, it is out of the hands of evolution again...
3) That it is caused by a immune reaction while in eutero, this has a lot of support for it as statistically the more previous male siblings one has, the higher the chance of being homosexual is.
This seems to be caused by the fact that every time the mother caries a male child it seems to react adversely to it.
Every time it has another male child the immune system becomes better at attacking male tissue...
The stronger this attack on the tissue, apparently, the higher the chance of the child being homosexual...
Again this is only a small disadvantage and the act that there hasn't been a 'bug fix' for this is barely surprising...

So in conclusion, my point is basically that the existance of homosexuality does not fundamentally refute the existance of evolution...

Jules

Lest the larger discussion on emotions gets lost in a "homosexuality" or "genetics/evolution" debate, let me point to Wikipedia and state that there is very rarely only a single cause for any given effect...

Solar wrote:Lest the larger discussion on emotions gets lost in a "homosexuality" or "genetics/evolution" debate, let me point to Wikipedia and state that there is very rarely only a single cause for any given effect...

Sorry, just making a point, but the discussion of evolution vs intelligent design is an important part of this conversation...

Jules

Yes, this is a friendly discussion, so I won't quote line by line as even in a friendly way I still find it rude.

Oh, yes, I am certainly a laymen in this matter. I would probably have been thrown out of class by now. I have been known to debate with my professors, but I mainly argue gender issues. I haven't had a professor brave enough to teach evolution. In my university our professors tend to be very broad when teaching religion and science. There are of course more defined courses but I typically would never sign up for a class in which I know I would spend 99% of my time arguing with the instructor; you tend to get bad grades that way.

I suppose nothing separates us, I assumed that you were attempting to define that line. If you see no difference, then I see no difference.

No, you see that is why we falter. Just because it is non-provable in your lab, doesn't mean my lab cannot. Like when the world thought the earth was flat, should I have at that time just accepted the popular belief? If I was to do that then I would have been severely wrong. Just like those who believe that I was once a primate. It isn't like creation isn't a science, yet we deny our children the right to learn that in a classroom! This is a mistake and I am not saying to not teach evolution but I am saying to teach evolution alongside of Creation giving both an equal amount of fairness so the child can chose. I am angry because I realized slowly as an adult that I have been taught evolution theory since I was in elementary school. Where the Big Bang Theory was excepted and taught. How a dolphin shape-shifted into a cow someday, and I believed it until I opened my eyes tot he truth. That truth is written in the Holy Bible. It isn't like the genesis story where man was formed from the earth is that far fetched. Think about it, man was created from the soil of the earth. What makes up man? Carbon (soil), Hydrogen, and Oxygen (combine makes water), so soil and water. The soul must exist or else this body would be lifeless as the soul is the energy we omit and powers our brains, hearts, etc. We have visually recorder aura, so it is known that our body omits energy (enough to illuminate a silhouette around the body). So, yes, I believe in a soul... I am after all a Creationist. But, I am not a preacher and I am not here to convert the lost, so let us not debate religious belief or the lack thereof or I am afraid my participation in it will cease to exist.

That's great! I have a good feeling that your kids are going to be just great. You seem very intelligent and responsible, so I know that you must treat those kids like gold. Which is a relief considering the opposite could be just as likely if your POV were less developed. I thank your parents for the result of you as I feel you might be apart of the cure and not the disease which is killing our planet.

No, I do not believe God ever wanted to create a man from monkey or dog from cat, which is why you cannot genetically alter a seed to produce a harvest year round, as the seeds from that genetically altered plant will always revert back to the original design. Just ask the Russians about that one.

No, I do Solar! Without that acceptance's my theory would be non-existent. I said that micro-evolution describes that long term impact. It even explains why people who came from a single source can someday appear severely different. Due to a longterm exposure to a dramatically different environment such as climate, elevation, or diet change a brown man could become a white man, or a brown man could become an Asian man. All having different skin color, mass, and bone structure. Without a longterm impact we would still be living stacked on top of one another in the Middle East. God said, to multiply and be fruitful, so it was intended for us to spread out and to do so we must have the ability to adapt to these changes.

No, the emotions are fake. It is just like a TV! You think you are staring at a funny sitcom, but you are really just looking at a blank screen! The ability to interpret basic emotions like sad, mad, glad is real; the label and understanding of that interpretation is fake.

Yes, I was referring to both human and animals. I had the Elephant in mind while posting the homosexual phenomenon we see in nature. And, yes, I believe it is a psychological disorder due to a hormone imbalance.

Yes, phobias are extremely advanced. I chose Msyophobia as an example because one must be educated before adopting such a phobia, since that phobia is a fear of germs. How else would you fear germs unless you knew of them? Therefore, this is a very advanced phobia that must be learned.

Sorry, if my thoughts seems cluttered or if I left out anything which makes what I said seem incomplete. I am awful busy at the moment and I couldn't wait to reply.

Just a second, living in a different environment can't directly change your genes... It can have epigenetic effect and your body has some in built mechanisms for adapting...
like tanning, but if you live in china for too long your not going to start to have elongated eyes, these changes won't be passed on to your children, well only to the extent that epigenetics allows...
The changes that we observe during our lie time are only due to in built abilities to adapt...

Jules

suthers wrote:Just a second, living in a different environment can't directly change your genes...

Chernobyl?

You think my quotation style is rude, but what you write is just the same with the quotes taken out, i.e. harder to understand. Ah well.

Proof is not proof unless it can be proven in any lab. Until then it's unverified findings. And "flat earth" wasn't a "popular" belief since over two thousand years. Believing that it was, on the other hand, is a popular, but misinformed, belief.

Then you go on a vacation from scientific discussion and start evangelizing Creationism instead, even using all the same techniques. You state hypothesis as fact, insult opposing hypothesis as "lie", start at the answer instead of at the question, and violate a number of other basic scientific and social rules, so I simply skip that.

You write "the truth is written in the Holy Bible", and in the same paragraph claim that you are "not a preacher" and ask me not to "debate religious belief". So I have to swallow your evangelism without getting a chance to reply? What's up, afraid of different views?

Earth, Water, Air, Fire, Life. Those are the powers I believe in. (Actually they form the grace we say at our table.) No holy writ, no holy days, no holy men telling me what to believe and what not. I don't know whether I have a soul that will be reborn, ascend to somewhere, continue in my children, or whether I'll just decompose, and frankly I don't care, because right now I am living, and trying to make the best of it.

The major disease killing this planet is what you would probably refer to as "the pinnacle of creation" - us humans. We invented money, and we invented religion (noteably something else than "belief"), both of which are merely tools to exert power beyond your own tribe. And thus, we ruin the world of our ancestors, for ourself and for our children. But as long as there is money to be had and sermons to be held, as long as anyone can profit so splendidly from being reckless, there won't be a cure, no matter what I teach my children. All I can do is speak up against arrogance and ignorance when I find it. And try not to despair from the sheer enormity of it.

As you will agree, no African turns white just by living in Norway, so we're talking several (hundreds of) generations. Voila, that's evolution for you. Perhaps it is some supreme being's tool to make its will come true. Only that mankind has removed the evolutional pressures from our life long ago. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't bother with skin color, mass, or bone structure anymore. It's all about power today. Funny enough, it's the powerless and poor that have the most offspring these days... perhaps there is a message in there somewhere.

God said, to multiply and be fruitful...

No she didn't.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

This debate will turn into a fight if we do not stop that kind of stuff right this instant. God is a she, Earth Wind Fire, what are you a witch? Come on. If I speak of God, I am doing so because I am a Creationist spending a large part of my earthly time seeking the truth through science to prove the existence of God and to disprove the existence of macro-evolution. If that is a mission you find to be opposing or threating to you then I am sorry; we are naturally opposed. Furthermore, you seem to have an animistic belief and I don't go around calling you a tree-hugger, the anti-Christ, a Pagan, a Zealot, or make fun of you for worshiping nature (what you believe is God), so don't make fun of me for worshiping what I believe is God, OK?

Your mission in life is to denounce ignorance and arrogance, have you not yourself to denounce now? Have you nothing better to do with your time?

Evangelizing? Is this what i am now because I said the word God and have confessed that his word is truth? Then I am proud to be your evangelist.

You debate like a politician, as it is all slings and arrows with you isn't it? I wasn't slinging arrows at you, so why are you slinging them at me? If my words hurt you somehow, then I am sorry, but please fire away as I am unarmed and I accept your passive aggressive attacks. However, let me remind you that an argument is simply nothing more than a debate without reason, so if you are arguing with me, at least find a real reason first. Your disbelief in my religious beliefs hardly warrant an attack, I think. But, whatever, I have been attacked this way before. I was trying to avoid this, but please carry on if you really want to argue with me.

How else do I respond, should I scramble my reply? Yes, quoting my words one after the other is rude to me, OK?

If you would have read even one of my earlier posts you would have not echoed exactly what I have already said. I admitted that it takes many generations for the skin color to change and that is not your precious evolution talking. The species didn't change, just the skin color or bone structure, are we all not homosapien despite our differences? What you call evolution I call natural adaptation. Which was apart of the initial design of God our FATHER!

There your arrows have been returned to you, enjoy. Perhaps now we can talk more nicely.

Ok so when it boils down to it, the only differences between what you believe and what you believe is that they where God's plan?
Well that doesn't matter I'm a practicing Christian to BTW...
So fundamentally this argument was about miss communication of ideas was it?

Jules

I am not a practicing Wicca, but we share many central beliefs, yes. So?

In "seeking [...] to prove the existence of God and disprove the existence of macro-evolution" you violate one of the fundamentals of scientific research. You start at the answer, and dismiss any rationale that doesn't suit you.

Science is about formulating a plausible hypothesis, and then trying to verify or falsify. Of course a scientist likes it better if his hypothesis is proven right, but to fudge the rationale is the ultimate offense for a scientist.

I don't "make fun" of you. But this was intended to be a debate on your hypothesis on emotions, and on a sidetrack, your hypothesis on evolution. I believe your hypothesis is false, and made an attempt to show errors in your rationale. This has nothing to do with "making fun", or "attacking" you, but is the basis of scientific discourse. I'd rather you don't bring the bible into this, because there is no such thing as "proof by authority".

When the skin color and bone structure of a species changes, this can be found in their genes, and it is no longer the same (sub-)species. (Consider if only half the population of a species underwent such change. They are still "homo sapiens", but now there are two subspecies.)

And I still find your arguments to be rather fuzzy. Adaption is "apart from the design of God" (skip on the "our FATHER", please, we wanted to keep religion out of this). Now, is this "being apart" good or bad in your eyes?

On a sidenote: You said that my studies were "stale knowledge", because you are "actively researching" the matter. Could you please explain how the bible, which is ancient by comparison, qualifies as source of knowledge? Not an insult, not an attack on your religion, but if you bring the bible into a scientific discussion, you have to have a rationale for it. Please try to limit your zeal, and keep in mind that "proof by authority" doesn't work...

I have no problem with talking nicely, but you need to losen up a bit and don't take opposing POV as a personal affront, we could just agree to not agree. I would merely ask - or at least strongly suggest - that you cut back a bit on the "truth / lie" evangelizing thing. You can believe all you want, and if it makes you happy I am glad for that. But please don't shove your bible under everyone's nose and call everyone not agreeing with you a liar or a bad person. Tolerance is the word here.

Omega wrote:This debate will turn into a fight if we do not stop that kind of stuff right this instant. God is a she, Earth Wind Fire, what are you a witch?

I would choose your words a little more cautiously next time if you wish to avoid fights.

Omega wrote: Your mission in life is to denounce ignorance and arrogance, have you not yourself to denounce now? Have you nothing better to do with your time?

Why the direct attack? Calling someone ignorant/arrogant about a belief will only start hostility or find a way to get spat back in your face.

Omega wrote: If you would have read even one of my earlier posts you would have not echoed exactly what I have already said. I admitted that it takes many generations for the skin color to change and that is not your precious evolution talking. The species didn't change, just the skin color or bone structure, are we all not homosapien despite our differences? What you call evolution I call natural adaptation. Which was apart of the initial design of God our FATHER!

You could have left off the end. You speak as if it is all of our belief. If your debate was the difference between 'evolution' and 'natural adaptation', you are comparing literal synonyms. Tomatoes. Tamatoes.

Locked - pity an interesting subject like this can't be discussed without going over the top...