Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution supported by scientific evidence and why or why not?

[Magic Poriferan]

[MENTION=1449]Magic Poriferan[/MENTION], my argument is precisely that evolution does not always mean increase in complexity, and that IMO I'd change the wording to something IMO more correct like adaptation.
Also, I'm an evolutionary biologist, so thank you but no need for links to genetic drift or notions on what the scientific community thinks about evolution lol

I don't mean to be condescending, but I imagine you know that it was highly improbable you would actually be someone that knew something about this, and supposing you weren't, just saying "genetic drift" and leaving it at that would probably have been completely unhelpful.

So, given your field, do you agree that genetic drift is not really an adaptive process?

 

[pinkgraffiti]

Sure, absolutely.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that the general public (and I've also seen it a lot in these forums) often gives a meaning or scope to "evolution" that in reality does not exist (and your genetic drift example is proof of this). I think this comes from a forced anthropomorphic outlook that we all have, and that is trasversal to evolutionism and creationism, and I think that the choice of the word is (partly) to blame.

 

[Mole]

there is nothing to say a creationist God did not choose to use evolution as its modus operandi.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to say God chose evolution.

So there is nothing to say that God chose evolution.

So to believe God chose evolution is blind faith, and serves the interests of religion.

 

[Standuble]

On the other hand, there is no evidence to say God chose evolution.

So there is nothing to say that God chose evolution.

So to believe God chose evolution is blind faith, and serves the interests of religion.

Indeed, I am of the atheist position so no need to explain this to me.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

If anyone is interested, there is a free class on coursera.org (coursera is an amazing website with loads of free uni online classes on just about anything) that you can take on evolution. the first week is just the introduction to evolution and it will cover much of the topics that are being discussed on this topic, for example video 3 entitled "evidence for evolution".
check out: https://class.coursera.org/molevol-001/
this is the video if you don't want to register: http://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.ne...nce_Of_Common_Descent_01_V2.51c98a17103ca.mp4

PS: "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Mole]

Charles Darwin could have been wrong. After all, he didn't understand how evolution worked.

However with the discovery of the genome, we now know how evolution works.

So Charles Darwin was proved right.

 

[rav3n]

Intelligent design promotion in the opening post.

How about a Dawkins rebuttal?

 

[RaptorWizard]

It still seems weird that people with big brains spent hundreds of thousands of years doing things the hunter-gatherer way, and only 10,000 years ago discovered the art of agriculture.

That's really dumb, because a simple observation of the dynamics of the plant kingdom would've surely revealed the secrets of planting and growing!

 

[Mole]

It still seems weird that people with big brains spent hundreds of thousands of years doing things the hunter-gatherer way, and only 10,000 years ago discovered the art of agriculture.

That's really dumb, because a simple observation of the dynamics of the plant kingdom would've surely revealed the secrets of planting and growing!

Like us the hunter gatherers were meaning creating animals.

And the hunter gatherers created rich cultures that sustained them for at least 100,000 years.

And the hunter gatherers are more like us than we imagine. They formed themselves into tribes with a spoken culture, while we are forming ourselves into electronic tribes (etribes) like Typology Central.

So for at least 100,000 years we lived in a spoken culture, then for about 200 years we lived in a literate culture, and now we are entering an electronic culture which is quite like our original spoken culture.

 

[WALMART]

It still seems weird that people with big brains spent hundreds of thousands of years doing things the hunter-gatherer way, and only 10,000 years ago discovered the art of agriculture.

That's really dumb, because a simple observation of the dynamics of the plant kingdom would've surely revealed the secrets of planting and growing!

It is only recently man grew the capability to observe and report, and even then, the capability is not widespread. It makes sense we have achieved what we have in this short stretch of modern history, regardless.

 

[Mole]

It is only recently man grew the capability to observe and report, and even then, the capability is not widespread. It makes sense we have achieved what we have in this short stretch of modern history, regardless.

Yes, with the invention of the printing press in 1440 we started to build literate societies.

And literacy changed us radically from our previous spoken culture.

Literacy changed our sense ratios and priviliged the visual.

But most of all litercy gave us the counter-intuitive cast of mind.

So we find almost all science and mathematics is counter-intuitive. Modern Economics is counter-intuitive. Liberal Democracy is counter-intuitive. And interestingly even Modern Art is counter-intuitive.

And the intuitive is left to astrology and mbti.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

And the intuitive is left to astrology and mbti.

You do realize that the idea of the "intuitive" was thought up by Nazi collaborator Carl Jung, correct? How can you claim that an "intuitive" is a valid concept, and reject Jung? Ïs the idea of the "intuitive" the one thing Jung got right in your opinion?

Regarding science, what portion of your last post is backed up by actual science? What studies have determined that the printing press has changed our sense ratios? You claim to be enamored of empiricism (I am more of a rationalist, if anyone is wondering), but continuously do a terrible job of applying it.

Anyway, I'm more of a rationalist than an empiricist, although I recognize the value of empiricism.

Literacy changed our sense ratios and priviliged the visual.

But most of all litercy gave us the counter-intuitive cast of mind.

Where are these statements supported by any kind of scientific study? If it's just something you arrived at by pure logic, I can see where the privilege of the visual comes from, but where is the leap from that to "counter-intuitive" cast of mind?

Moreover, in everyday speech, the term "counter-intuitive", is used more often to refer to something that's against common sense assumptions, and has nothing to do with Jung's intuition function. Intuition deals with possibilities. If counter-intuitive were referring to that kind of intuition, it seems to me that saying that a thing is counter-intuitive would be saying that a thing is exactly what we would expect it to be. This is the opposite of how the term is used.

If anything, literacy takes us beyond what is immediately "sensible". Writing itself is a symbolic representation of another thing, not a thing itself. Writing allows us to gain an understanding of things that we have not witnessed directly with our senses. I wouldn't say that writing represents intuition over sensing, but it's equally absurd to say that it represents sensing because we look at it with eyes. I'm not sure why you are implying that writing is "sensing" over "intuition", since you regard MBTI and Jung as bunk, but if you could explain how you reconcile those thoughts, enlighten me.

Gotta get back to my weasel lair.

 

[WALMART]

Se is about learning from evidenced, concrete experience. Se is uncomfortable with intuition in general, and Jung makes it very apparent he uses the term in a classical sense. Evidence will always be greater than logic, the Se user knows this better than anyone. Books expand the scope of experience available to sense-favoring peoples.

Where are these statements supported by any kind of scientific study? If it's just something you arrived at by pure logic, I can see where the privilege of the visual comes from, but where is the leap from that to "counter-intuitive" cast of mind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

Here is a good book on the subject, dealing with the modern mind framed in context of our advanced society. In it, he details two dichotomies:

System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious
System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious

I wonder, what dichotomies these could correlate to...?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Se is about learning from evidenced, concrete experience. Se is uncomfortable with intuition in general, and Jung makes it very apparent he uses the term in a classical sense. Evidence will always be greater than logic, the Se user knows this better than anyone. Books expand the scope of experience available to sense-favoring peoples.

In so far as objects release sensations, they matter; and, in so far as it lies within the power of sensation, they are also fully accepted into consciousness, whether compatible with reasoned judgment or not. As a function its sole criterion of value is the strength of the sensation as conditioned by its objective qualities. Accordingly, all objective processes, in so far as they release sensations at all, make their appearance in consciousness. It is, however, only concrete, sensuously perceived objects or processes which excite sensations in the extraverted attitude; exclusively those, in fact, which everyone in all times and places would sense as concrete.

. Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision

Interesting....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

Here is a good book on the subject, dealing with the modern mind framed in context of our advanced society. In it, he details two dichotomies:

System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious
System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious

I wonder, what dichotomies these could correlate to...?

not sure. I would need some evidence before jumping to conclusions. I wouldn't want to make any conclusion not supported by data.

If I were to make wild, unsupported claims, I would say that it's T vs. F, not S vs. N.

 

[WALMART]

Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision.

Interesting....

"Kahneman uses heuristics to assert that System 1 thinking involves associating new information with existing patterns, or thoughts, rather than creating new patterns for each new experience. In a legal metaphor, a judge limited to heuristic thinking would only be able to think of similar historical cases when presented with a new dispute, rather than seeing the unique aspects of that case. In addition to offering an explanation for the statistical problem, the theory also offers an explanation for human biases."

Don't feel like scanning through, but Jung puts Se as being keenly aware of variances in detail.

If I were to make wild, unsupported claims, I would say that it's T vs. F, not S vs. N.

I've only glanced over the concepts of feeling as written by Jung. I presume iNtuiting and Feeling to be in bed with each other, as Thinking and Sensing plainly are (as evidenced by Te and Se type descriptions).

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

"Kahneman uses heuristics to assert that System 1 thinking involves associating new information with existing patterns, or thoughts, rather than creating new patterns for each new experience. In a legal metaphor, a judge limited to heuristic thinking would only be able to think of similar historical cases when presented with a new dispute, rather than seeing the unique aspects of that case. In addition to offering an explanation for the statistical problem, the theory also offers an explanation for human biases."

Don't feel like scanning through, but Jung puts Se as being keenly aware of variances in detail.

It is, but as another extroverted irrational function, so is Ne. Only being able to think of similar historical cases when presented with a new dispute sounds more like Si-Te than Ne-Ti. It merely happens that the details Ne focuses on are different than the details Se focuses on. The generalizing nature of an INTP is due more to Ti than Ne. Ne focuses on the objective external world.

Needing "similar historical cases" in fact, speaks of the paralytic over-reliance on "evidence" that pushes me away from empiricism, and attracts me to rationalism.

I've only glanced over the concepts of feeling as written by Jung. I presume iNtuiting and Feeling to be in bed with each other, as Thinking and Sensing plainly are (as evidenced by Te and Se type descriptions).

No. We have the rational functions of Feeling and Thinking, and the irrational functions of Intuition and Sensing. The two rational functions are opposed to each other, as are the two irrational functions. Sensing, however does not oppose feeling or thinking, nor does thinking oppose intuition or sensing. A rational function and an irrational function don't work against each other in the same way that the two rational functions do.

 

[Mole]

[MENTION=18059]Scheherezade[/MENTION]

You asked me privately about intuitive and counter-intuitive, so I thought I would give you examples.

For instance, politicians intuitively seek to maximise their power, while liberal democracy counter-intuitively limits power.

And for instance, religions intuitively see private greed as usury, while Adam Smith taught us counter-intuitively that private greed give public prosperity.

And for instance, we intuitively understand things our own size, while we counter-intuitively understand things very big with Relativity, or very small with Quantum Mechanics.

And for instance, we intuitively learn to speak our language at home, but are sent to special institutions called schools to counter-intuitively learn to read and write.

And in fact spoken cultures are naturally intuitive, while literate cultures are unnaturally counter-intuitive.

But as I write to you, we are moving on from a counter-intuitive literate culture to an intuitive electronic culture.

So once again the wheel turns and we are returning to an intuitive culture.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

[MENTION=18059]Scheherezade[/MENTION]

You asked me privately about intuitive and counter-intuitive, so I thought I would give you examples.

For instance, politicians intuitively seek to maximise their power, while liberal democracy counter-intuitively limits power.

That has nothing to do with intuition. You just threw the word "intuitively" in there, and hoped people would take it at face value. If it's related to intuition, explain how, using logical statements, not flowery but meaningless rhetorical poetry.

Jungian intuitions are not "gut feelings" or "common sense." I know previously, you said you rejected Jung, but you seem curiously interested in demonstrating the superiority of non-intuitives through stressing the value of something that you believe is "counter-intuition."

 

[Mole]

That has nothing to do with intuition. You just threw the word "intuitively" in there, and hoped people would take it at face value. If it's related to intuition, explain how, using logical statements, not flowery but meaningless rhetorical poetry.

You don't even appear to know what intuition means in the Jungian sense. I'm not surprised.

This is no surprise as I am a counter-Jungian.

Jung based his psychological types on no empirical evidence, so Jung's 'intuition' means nothing to me.

Rather I use 'intuitive' and 'counter-intuitive' in the English sense of natural and unnatural.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Rather I use 'intuitive' and 'counter-intuitive' in the English sense of natural and unnatural.

That's a very interesting choice of words to use around here. I'm sure they were chosen just by coincidence.

Also, I have yet to see any empirical evidence for 95% of the points you make in your posts. When pressed for evidence, you do nothing but supply more weird rhetorical poetry.