Meanwhile, the Looney Tunes thread with a similar name has led to a video on Youtube called "REAL LIVE DINOSAUR footage CAUGHT ON TAPE!".
I think the idea is that evolution did not occur because no species went extinct in the distant past. 
[Also, I'm happy to take bets on the theory of evolution being overturned, along with the same for the overturning of heliocentrism and the theory that the Earth is not flat].
It's already been over turned, by me!😉
e99: Common descent should be taught in a philosophy class, and I predict that someday it will be!"
Naw, e99...philosophy is dead. I personally think that religion should be likewise. But here's the thing...
I am still mucking around in The Selfish Gene. It should be interesting when hapless returns and gives a critique on it.
I have learned some things about microbiology, but I don't think that the book negates religion. Unless science can replicate biological life in the lab, it comes up short. On top of which, even if science could do that, it still won't have uncovered the first cause.
How was an atom created from nothing? That would be "getting close". But even then, there is an old pithy: "You can't prove a negative." By this I mean that you can neither prove that there is no God(s) nor can you prove that I don't astral travel when there is a full moon.
Science has disproven much of the speculation from philosophers. But it hasn't, and may never, disprove things that require faith. Personally, I think that the holy handbooks show themselves to be little more than man made. And I do think that religion was started when the first knave met the first fool.
But these are just my personal opinions. And I can see why religion, in recent times, has come to embrace (well, some religions...the Catholic church, for one) evolution because the paleontology is so very convincing.
Anyway, on the book...
In Chapter 11, I am disappointed when Richard Dawkins becomes a philosopher instead of a scientist. This is when he starts talking about memes and, in particular, the God meme. I think that he should have stuck with the science.
People of faith will not have a scientific epiphany from this book.
No I don't. Before I'll have read that book this topic will be long gone and the review I read (positive and negative ones) didn't gave me the impression that author has no idea about philosophy, so could at least point out where Descartes goes wrong (where emotions come in and stuff) and stop saying that he is stupid because he is religious (which is clearly ad hominem).
The author of Descartes Error, Dr. Anthony Damasio, is a brain surgeon...a scientist. Philosophy is just opinions, often based on fluff, superstition and neurotic thinking. Nothing more.
Dr. Damasio, when writing that book, had absolutely no intention of giving an ad hominem to Descartes. He rigorously explains what a brain surgeon knows about the brain. The topic of the brain is every bit as intriguing as the theory of evolution. Much is still a mystery. But that book would have provided you with facts instead of philosophical mysticism.
I'm glad that you finally informed me as to how I slandered Descartes. I was absolutely puzzled when you said I had issued an ad hominem attack. Now I know what you are perceiving.
You are offended that I attacked religion when I supposedly attacked Descartes. No...no...don't slime me like that. My point was that here we have a man who "can know nothing" and from that basis goes on to "prove everything", which includes both secular and the mystical.
And where did I ever say that Descartes was stupid? He was quite intelligent.
1. You obviously think that science is omnipotent. The main difference between philosophy and science is that philosophy denies everything it cannot prove. Science is miles away from that. And scientists are not gods, EVEN Dr. Damnasio can be wrong. Science is falsifiable by definition while a priori means only that it cannot be refuted.
2. All you have said in the whole debate about Descartes is that science has refuted him. Can you please show how (post 684 for example). My guess is that Damnasio was only attacking a straw man.
3. I know that Nietzsche killed God (altough he was actually "killed" before), but I have never heard that philosophy got killed 
.
Common descent should be taught in a philosophy class, and I predict that someday it will be!😊
What has common descent in common with philosophy? Evolution is a scientific theory (and a good one) so it can only be refuted by pure science, which doesn't seem likely to happen.
It's already been over turned, by me!😉
No. Merely convincing yourself about something is insufficient, as every crackpot and cultist of every variety demonstrates.
Barto says:
1. You obviously think that science is omnipotent.
The main difference between philosophy and science is that philosophy denies everything it cannot prove. Science is miles away from that. And scientists are not gods, EVEN Dr. Damnasio can be wrong. Science is falsifiable by definition while a priori means only that it cannot be refuted.
2. All you have said in the whole debate about Descartes is that science has refuted him. Can you please show how (post 684 for example). My guess is that Damnasio was only attacking a straw man.
3. I know that Nietzsche killed God (altough he was actually "killed" before), but I have never heard that philosophy got killed .
***********************************************************
I do not "think that science is omnipotent". You keep putting words in my mouth. These kinds of statements from you show me that you are poorly educated and lacking in rational thinking. You even seem to lack comprehension that a god, hypothetically, may be omnipotent. Science can not because science is a methodology.
And you like to use the philosophical "a priori" when talking about science. In science, what we have are axioms. I think you are muddled in your distinction between philosophy and science.
Also, when you say that "science is falsifiable by definition". What in tarnation "definition" are you referring to?
Damasio only attacking a strawman... You haven't and won't read the book. So you really know zip about what you are saying. I refute what you say. I have read the book. You prove to me what you just said. I am not here to prove anything to you. You choose to be ignorant and then attack me? Put up or shut up. Give me your critique as to Dr. Damasio attacking a strawman.
Yes, I know Nietzsche said that God is dead. So what? He is dead, nutcase that he was, but so is philosophy. You never heard that philosophy "got killed"? Think man...thimk (sic)! I've told you so several times. Are you just a wind-up doll stuck on freshman philosophy and Spinoza's monads and such? We are in the 21st century now. Omphaliskepsis is no longer a valid scientific tool. Get over yourself.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
— Nietzsche, The Gay Science
Barto says:
1. You obviously think that science is omnipotent.
The main difference between philosophy and science is that philosophy denies everything it cannot prove. Science is miles away from that. And scientists are not gods, EVEN Dr. Damnasio can be wrong. Science is falsifiable by definition while a priori means only that it cannot be refuted.
2. All you have said in the whole debate about Descartes is that science has refuted him. Can you please show how (post 684 for example). My guess is that Damnasio was only attacking a straw man.
3. I know that Nietzsche killed God (altough he was actually "killed" before), but I have never heard that philosophy got killed .
***********************************************************
I do not "think that science is omnipotent". You keep putting words in my mouth. These kinds of statements from you show me that you are poorly educated and lacking in rational thinking. You even seem to lack comprehension that a god, hypothetically, may be omnipotent. Science can not because science is a methodology.
And you like to use the philosophical "a priori" when talking about science. In science, what we have are axioms. I think you are muddled in your distinction between philosophy and science.
Also, when you say that "science is falsifiable by definition". What in tarnation "definition" are you referring to?
Damasio only attacking a strawman... You haven't and won't read the book. So you really know zip about what you are saying. I refute what you say. I have read the book. You prove to me what you just said. I am not here to prove anything to you. You choose to be ignorant and then attack me? Put up or shut up. Give me your critique as to Dr. Damasio attacking a strawman.
Yes, I know Nietzsche said that God is dead. So what? He is dead, nutcase that he was, but so is philosophy. You never heard that philosophy "got killed"? Think man...thimk (sic)! I've told you so several times. Are you just a wind-up doll stuck on freshman philosophy and Spinoza's monads and such? We are in the 21st century now. Omphaliskepsis is no longer a valid scientific tool. Get over yourself.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
— Nietzsche, The Gay Science
I think that it was you who muddled in distinction between philosophy and science as you simply cannot prove philosophy wrong using science. My point about attacking a strawman is that you cannot use emotion and things like to disprove apriorical facts because you must doubt in them in the first place.
I smiply cannot read a book in a day so I'm begging you: can you please show me where his logic goes wrong (post 684). And to make things clearer: here is a great book about philosophy (still reading it though) that you should read: Immanuel Kant: Critique of Pure Reason.
About falsiability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Here are the possibilities. 1. God is alive and interacts with the world. 2. God is alive but at rest and does not currently interact in the world. 3. God was alive but now is dead. 4. God never was alive and never interacted with the world.
Nietzsche favored possibility #3. I favor possibility #2 with the qualifier that there may be rare exceptions. The answer that most closely describes the truth can only be intuited by each person individually. There is no empirical solution to the question.
I might add that the flat earth earth theory is quite a different thing and can be debunked empirically.
God has interacted with me and several of my friends, I choose numbe1.😊
I don't believe Nietzsche favoured #3. I think he was really talking about the death of the idea of God, or of the end of the dictatorship of religion.
Perhaps a bit prematurely...
As for the changing role of philosophy, I see it more as a process of sidelining. Science in general takes little notice of it, with rare exceptions. Society as a whole, and its institutions take like notice of it. For example, bishops still have a role in the House of Lords in the UK, but where are the philosophers? People don't look to moral philosophers for moral guidance.
The scope of philosophy used to be a lot larger, hence terminology such as PhD. It's just that when subjects get more methodical and rigorous, people don't consider them philosophy any more.
Back on topic. In evolution, speciation has an exaggerated role, perhaps due to the historical origins of the subject.
Firstly, species are not, in general, well-defined (although they may be in some cases. Humans may be such a case). A good example is ring species, which don't fit into the tidy idea of disjoint species, but have an interesting alternative relationship.
Species don't really exist in any sensible way for asexual organisms. We just classify them according to whether they are similar enough for it to be convenient.
Speciation is an emergent property of the way evolution explores the space of possible genomes in sexually reproducing organisms. It is disadvantageous to a genome to be incompatible with too many possible partners, which tends to bind genomes together, like wildebeeste in a herd (there too, and in other herding or flocking animals, there is a mathematical model that explains why herding occurs). So genomes in a population have a tendency to cluster together w.r.t. genetic compatibility.
Where the distribution of genomes for whatever reason is bimodal (or more complicated), the clustering can eventually cause the population to break into two clusters by the same mechanism: it becomes unfavourable for genomes to be in the thinning bridge between the modes, so it gets thinner. It's like a droplet of fluid breaking into two under some circumstances.
The sorts of drivers for bifurcation are two slightly different niches (different foodstuffs, or locations. Actually geographical divide can lead to separation into two species just by genetic drift, since the populations never mix, so the distribution of genomes in one population never influences the distribution in the other to make it cluster together.
The only reasons that evolution deniers can't see this sort of thing are:
I really don't have to prove common descent wrong Elroch, for it's never been proven right. Its like the notion of a flat earth, people just believed It.
Science is slowly showing the inadequacy of random solutions for non random systems. Although non random evolution is a much more powerful explanation for the observed non random systems that we observe, it too does not prove common descent.
As science delves deeper into the mystery of life and it's complex systems, machinery, and processes, a panoply of immense design and engineering is emerging. Even the evolutionists are using these very terms to describe the complexities of life.
A new paradigm of understanding is emerging from a fruitless and bankrupt notion that we came from ooze and shall return to ooze.
We are awesomely and wondrously made from a master craftsman and engineer!😊
I really don't have to prove common descent wrong Elroch, for it's never been proven right. Its like the notion of a flat earth, people just believed It.
What matters is that all of those most knowledgeable and expert disagree with you and understand that the theory of evolution is established as correct.
It is your lack of understanding that you are expressing: you are not qualified to pronounce about the understanding of people more expert than you.
I think elroch needs to be a little more open to disenting opinion. He reasons that: experts think thus. You do not think thus, therefore you are not an expert. It's sort of a circular argument.
No. It is not an arbitrary matter who has expertise in a scientific area. It is a meritocracy, based on excellence at every stage. It is about rigorously demonstrating understanding and the application of that understanding.
The relevant people are those who are capable of doing years of extremely detailed and thorough research and get it past other people who are just as expert and whose job it is to pick holes in their work and find any faults in it. For example, those who wrote the work on primate evolution that I have referred to on several occasions. These are not just people who have got first class degrees and good PhDs, these are among the best of those who have done so in their field.
To say 99 is not in the same league is an understatement. Of course, the same would apply to me, but I seem to have better success in understanding why those more expert come to their main conclusions, and am in many cases able to explain it. I also have quite a good understanding of evolution from a mathematical modelling point of view. There are interesting similarities to the theory of optimisation and other areas.
The point here is a general one. If you want to get the best understanding of any subject, you need to enlist the help of those who best understand it. This is how education (especially science education) is designed: by presenting in digestible form the knowledge which has become established as scientific truth - knowledge which was first acquired by the best scientists and thoroughly tested by their peers.
A fine soliloquy Elroch. Mostly BS. but take a bow!😂
Here is a subject that is on topic and should be of interest to those participating in this forum.
Long before recorded history begins there is evidence that man was creating stories. Some of the stories were about heroic persons. Most of these were, at least to some extent, based on real people and these stories, no matter how embellished, are usually thought of as legends. Then there are many stories that were created describing mystical or spiritual concepts. Sometimes they have been called myths or revelations. Some of these revelations are taken to be divine revelations and some are stories recounting alleged human experience. They predate written records and pervade all human cultures. Apparently there has never been an atheistic society that we know of.
My questions are: Is there a “selfish” gene or combination of genes that makes man a myth maker? Are we obliged to fight what would be the instinctive need to record these stories? Do you think some people are gifted in some cases with “third-eye” wisdom? If not, why are these beliefs so universally pervasive?
You'd do well to read the last chapters of The Selfish Gene if that's what you'd like to ponder. Dawkins gets off the track of science and speculates about the "religious meme". When he did this, I was quite disappointed.
Also, the book is 30 years old. Since we've seen exponential growth in scientific knowledge over the last 100 years, 30 years is quite ancient. I do not recommend the book.
I have now read two of Dawkins' books and would rate both as, let's say, a B- . Not bad. Not great. But my time and lifespan is getting more and more finite. So, I must choose wisely where I will waste it. More chess? I usually only have about 50 games going (here and elsewhere). Perhaps I should "up the ante"?
I am >70. It won't be long before I meet my "maker". When I do, I'll give you guys feedback. If you don't hear from me, then that would mean I'm simply dead.
Common descent should be taught in a philosophy class, and I predict that someday it will be!😊