tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2481039213656298175..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Two Books on the Cambrian ExplosionLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49439507304500888292013-04-10T22:37:02.681-04:002013-04-10T22:37:02.681-04:00Diogenes
I don't see how I lost anything.
Over...Diogenes<br />I don't see how I lost anything.<br />Overlapping means nothing as to process and descent.<br />The fossils are just a snapshot in time.<br />It is the fossil sequences in segregated strata that is being used as the evidence for descent and process(evolution).<br />The white cliffs of dover are the remains of creatures collected turned to stone.<br />Thats all they are.<br />Yet to connect them by descent and the process is not in any way found in stone.<br />If another collection is claimed to be in sequence to the first it is not by any biological scientific investigation.<br />Its just connecting like looking creatures from strata said to be separated in time.<br />Where's the biology here?<br />Its only geology ideas that is being used for biological conclusions.<br />You can't prove evolutionary biology using rocks.<br />Why am I wrong here???Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8374570255712804402013-04-10T05:33:04.571-04:002013-04-10T05:33:04.571-04:00Piotr writes,
'Shklovsky and Sagan, by the w...Piotr writes, <br /> 'Shklovsky and Sagan, by the way, were men of science, both of them. So are, for example, the climatologists whose warnings are routinely ignored or ridiculed by denialists '<br /><br />Of course of course. No argument. I am not an either/or thinker and I am not arguing that science is always/inevitably/usually, etc. bad or harmful. Nothing of the sort.<br />But Rumraket, lutesuite, and Diogenes all seem to be arguing that erroneous beliefs will inevitably lead to trouble, and I disagree with that. As I wrote above, I believe (yes, intentional use of that word) that beliefs are less important than that. For example, other species get along without having them at all, one way or another. They also seem to feel that only knowledge will save us from whatever troubles we find ourselves in, but unlike you, they never bothered to make that conditional on the necessity for that knowledge being applied wisely. Because two of those persons are ideologues, they wouldn't want to even make that explicit, as it would lead to questions concerning the 'dark side' of knowledge/science, which they are ideologically opposed to even admitting exists. To them, religion has no (and no possible) light side and science has no (and no possible) dark side. <br />But you needn't have pointed out the bona fides of men like Shlovsky and Sagan to ME, as I do not see things in the blinkered, closed-minded way that Rumraket and Diogenes do.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20881222886869165612013-04-10T05:10:01.771-04:002013-04-10T05:10:01.771-04:00My point throughout this thread is that humans hav...My point throughout this thread is that humans have always been aggressive exploiters of natural resources and thought little about the consequences. They could get away with it as long as the resources seemed practically unlimited in comparison with population sizes, but they did cause mass extinctions and other environmental disturbances even with their simple technologies before the Neolithic revolution. We have become aware of the dangers ahead only thanks to the scientific knowledge we possess. Shklovsky and Sagan, by the way, were men of science, both of them. So are, for example, the climatologists whose warnings are routinely ignored or ridiculed by denialists (including too many politicians and the ignorant majority of the public opinion). "Global warming my a*se! We had snowfalls at Easter this year -- where's the bloody warming?"<br /><br />Quite a few cultures before us have collapsed because of self-inflicted ecological disasters. They had never seen them coming, they had no rational explanation for them, and I suppose they blamed them on the bad temper of their gods.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2922389771969439752013-04-10T05:04:31.194-04:002013-04-10T05:04:31.194-04:00Dio writes,
'(Value) + (Fact-claim) --> (Po...Dio writes,<br />'(Value) + (Fact-claim) --> (Policy)<br /><br />If your fact-claim is false, then your policy will produce the OPPOSITE of what your value seeks.'<br /><br />The ancient Polynesians valued rowing boats around in circles in the ocean until they died of starvation. Their 'fact-claim' was that the stars were a type of canopy in the night sky, perhaps sentient, NOT giant gas balls like our own sun. <br />Thus, their policy produced the OPPOSITE of what their value sought. They kept bumping into islands, inhabiting them, trading with their inhabitants, etc.<br />Gosh, Dio! You're RIGHT!andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43038418111351215642013-04-10T03:45:44.705-04:002013-04-10T03:45:44.705-04:00Piotr writes,' It's possible that our civi...Piotr writes,' It's possible that our civilisation will self-annihilate, but if it does, it will be the result of greed and short-sightedness, not of too much wisdom and knowledge.'<br />Hang on, I never said anything about 'wisdom', let's remember. Knowledge, and the wisdom to use it constructively, are not the same thing, I am sure you agree.<br /><br />No argument that it will be the result of greed and short-sightedness (if it should come about), but also it will attributable to a misuse of the knowledge we possess.<br />If a driving instructor teaches his eight year old to drive, but then the child causes a fatal accident, the child will have used the knowledge of how to drive a car to do harm.<br />The father's stupidity and willingness to break the law will be the main cause, and secondarily the child's physical and emotional limitations concerning the operation of an automobile. But the knowledge will have played a role. Without it, the death would not have occurred.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17458660028498032852013-04-10T02:48:26.043-04:002013-04-10T02:48:26.043-04:00Of course, Cassandra, the end is nigh. Nevertheles...Of course, Cassandra, the end is nigh. Nevertheless, so far it remains a grim prediction, not a fact. It's possible that our civilisation will self-annihilate, but if it does, it will be the result of greed and short-sightedness, not of too much wisdom and knowledge. Note where the warnings come from (and so ideas how to solve at least some of the problems): people who <b>know</b> something about the Earth and its resources, certainly not from people inspired by blind faith in supernatural protection. The traditional message of the church, by contrast, has been as follows: "Grow and multiply, exploit the planet, and never fear. God will take care of other problems and provide you with all you need".Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40851716510340198412013-04-10T01:58:49.995-04:002013-04-10T01:58:49.995-04:00Piotr writes, 'The Europeans have been far mor...Piotr writes, 'The Europeans have been far more destructive so far, but they haven't become extinct either and I don't think they will soon.'<br /><br />Well, it is encouraging to see you so sanguine about environmental destruction, etc. Take that, Carl Sagan!<br />I hope you are right, but as we DO live on a finite planet and are exploiting its resources rapidly (topsoil, fish stocks, water, etc.), can you explain where that confidence comes from? Do you assume we will inevitably find technological solutions to counterbalance our wasteful and destructive tendencies? andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5978071178566176652013-04-10T01:51:18.918-04:002013-04-10T01:51:18.918-04:00Piotr, Rumraket wrote,
"people's beliefs...Piotr, Rumraket wrote,<br /><br />"people's beliefs inform their actions, and if they believe in false or unsubstantiated things, they're more likely to be making choices that lead them further from their goals instead of towards them."<br />He didn't stress whether or not he was referring to the people he was talking about getting the RELEVANT things right. Should I have assumed he meant that, and would you have?<br /><br />Lutesuite wrote, later on in that thread after I had responded, 'So, andy, your position seems to boil down to this: That it is of no importance whether one's beliefs are true or not.'<br />Again, should I have assumed that he was being fastidious in his application of 'true', as you are being now?<br /><br />Reading between the lines can be so difficult! ;)andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82898521860741812722013-04-10T01:23:56.274-04:002013-04-10T01:23:56.274-04:00Would you argue that these (numerous) erroneous be...<i>Would you argue that these (numerous) erroneous beliefs compromised their navigational abilities in some way, and that knowledge of the true nature of the stars would have improved them?</i><br /><br />No, because they got the <b>relevant</b> facts correct, and that was what mattered in their situation. They needed the stars only as a frame of reference and whatever their beliefs about their "true nature", they didn't invent counterfactual stories about their configuration in the sky or their orientation with respect to the cardinal directions.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22412307755504290202013-04-10T01:18:54.057-04:002013-04-10T01:18:54.057-04:00It's true that, at least in North America, the...It's true that, at least in North America, the European immigrants and their descendants caused far more damege than the indigenous tribes, but it was already a continent stripped of most of its large mammal fauna. Climatic change alone doesn't explain it, given that the American megafauna had lived through dozens of glacial-interglacial cycles. Of course the American Indians adapted to the changes. It was mammoths, horses, camels, mastodonts and ground sloths that didn't. The Europeans have been far more destructive so far, but they haven't become extinct either and I don't think they will soon.<br /><br />When the Europeans arrived at Easter Island, the local situation was one of an endgame: the Easter Island Polynesians had deforested their homeland completely and were desperately struggling against an environmental disaster of their own making. In New Zealand, Madagaskar, and even Australia, you can see the archeological destruction horizon coinciding with the arrival of humans.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39820754123438471072013-04-10T01:14:59.496-04:002013-04-10T01:14:59.496-04:00lutesuite, Piotr brings up a fascinating topic: th...lutesuite, Piotr brings up a fascinating topic: the seafaring abilities of the ancient Polynesians.<br />As you know, they used stars to navigate their routes.<br />They may have believed that these stars were put their BY a deity (perhaps to assist them), or were themselves deities.<br />They almost certainly believed the stars were much smaller than the earth, were much closer to the earth than they actually are, and that the ones that appeared closest together in the sky WERE closest together.<br />Furthermore, they almost certainly did NOT believe that they are giant balls of gas that have a lot in common with the sun.<br />Would you argue that these (numerous) erroneous beliefs compromised their navigational abilities in some way, and that knowledge of the true nature of the stars would have improved them?andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30978421656703147512013-04-09T23:50:46.174-04:002013-04-09T23:50:46.174-04:00Piotr, although the information you provide is, as...Piotr, although the information you provide is, as always, interesting, I am not sure how you are using it to (or even if you are intending to use it to) counter the broader argument I am making; that erroneous beliefs don't necessarily translate into low survivability for a culture, and that a great deal of knowledge does not guarantee high survivability.<br /><br />For example, I assume that you and I would agree that had the Europeans visited North America in the 20th century rather than centuries before, they would not have encountered tribes that had set the Cuyahoga River on fire (1952),'killed' Lake Erie (as so declared in 1970), or caused a major nuclear disaster (Three Mile Island, 1979). Nor would the tribes be eating a large percentage of food that was delivered to them over hundreds or even thousands of miles at great environmental cost.<br />Furthermore, I assume you agree that the great North American forests, so dense that the legend holds that a squirrel could have moved from the Atlantic Coast to the Mississippi River without once stepping onto the ground, would still be there to a far greater extent than now. Yes?<br />And may I also assume that you aren't predicting the tribes would no longer be there, that they would have become extinct through insufficient knowledge in those three or four centuries?<br />I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this, as this is by far the more salient matter over which lutesuite and I are arguing.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77017984701686168102013-04-09T18:53:47.892-04:002013-04-09T18:53:47.892-04:00Thus biology and geology overlap, and fossils can ...<i>Thus biology and geology overlap, and fossils can be used to prove evolution.</i><br /><br />Now we should ask Byers to explain how biology and the text of the Old Testament are supposed to overlap.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59594848309004006662013-04-09T17:53:10.772-04:002013-04-09T17:53:10.772-04:00So skeletons are biology AND geology!
I win.
Thu...So skeletons are biology AND geology!<br /><br />I win.<br /><br />Thus biology and geology overlap, and fossils can be used to prove evolution.<br /><br />Byers: <i>Geology can't be used as biological scientific evidence for conclusions about biology.</i><br /><br />NO. You just admitted the same evidence can be biology AND geology, thus fossils can be used to prove evolution.<br /><br />Why so scared of fossils, Byers? I guess because we have so many transitionals now.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46369279072977260392013-04-09T17:17:38.516-04:002013-04-09T17:17:38.516-04:00I answered.
Skeletons are the remnants of former b...I answered.<br />Skeletons are the remnants of former biological agents.<br />Them being turned into hard structures is a special case .<br />Them being classified as geological elements is a special case.<br /><br />Yet they tell no tale except what they show in their present form or what can be gleaned from them.<br />Geology can't be used as biological scientific evidence for conclusions about biology.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56412219677151982992013-04-09T17:11:16.879-04:002013-04-09T17:11:16.879-04:00SREM.
The fossil record IS evidence for what it de...SREM.<br />The fossil record IS evidence for what it describes.<br />Yet I'm insisting its NOT biological scientific evidence.<br />The connections, the stuff of their theory, is not fossilized.<br />Process and descent claims are not shown in the fossil record except by assumptions of geology.<br />Without the geology assumptions there is no biological evidence.<br />SO i say biological evidence is only that if based on biology.<br />No geology cheat notes.<br />S o a flaw in the investigation has been going on for some time now.<br />I'm on solid ground in daring evolutionists they can't provide biological scientific evidence for Toe in its great claims. Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3539696327169410402013-04-09T14:54:48.503-04:002013-04-09T14:54:48.503-04:00Further on that topic:
http://news.nationalgeogra...Further on that topic:<br /><br />http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080401-mammoth-extinction.htmlFaizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38365692028105254702013-04-09T14:44:50.150-04:002013-04-09T14:44:50.150-04:00@Andy: Aren't you underestimating "primit...@Andy: Aren't you underestimating "primitive societies"? There have never been any hunter-gatherers in Polynesia. Polynesia was colonised by Austronesian sailors between roughly 900 BC and 1300 AD; they were the first humans there, and they were fully advanced farmers who had crossed the Pacific with their domestic dogs, pigs, and chicken. In Europe, only the Scandinavians had developed comparable seagoing skills by the Middle Ages.<br /><br />Even Papua New Guinea and the Amazon basin had well-developed Neolithic cultures well before the arrival of the Europeans. As a matter of fact, pottery and domesticated plants were known in South America earlier than in Europe. Central America was the home of the most advanced Native American civilisations. Of the 16th-century cities of Western Europe, only Paris was comparable with Tenochtitlan in terms of size and importance.<br /><br />Even those cultures that could be claimed to have lived "closer to nature", like those of the Native Australians or the first migrants from Beringia to the New World, tended to cause a lot of damage in the local ecosystems (especially the magafaunas) within centuries of their arrival. There was no real "symbiosis" with the environment, except perhaps in pre-Neolithic sub-Saharan Africa, where our species had evolved, giving its cohabitants enough time to adapt to its presence.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10188040217638240672013-04-09T08:47:57.089-04:002013-04-09T08:47:57.089-04:00Good to see that Isaac is embracing new technology...Good to see that Isaac is embracing new technology.<br /><br />A lot of older folk never do make the transition.<br />steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20581532208533237542013-04-09T05:42:20.107-04:002013-04-09T05:42:20.107-04:00lutesuite writes, 'Of the 7 billion people now...lutesuite writes, 'Of the 7 billion people now living on earth, what percentage live in primitive hunter/gatherer societies? You think that's just an accident?'<br />Of course it's not an accident. But it is a result of what I stated earlier. Even as recently as five hundred years ago you still had plenty of people living more or less as they always had, in North America, in Polynesia, in what is now part of Indonesia, in Central and South America, etc.<br />In all these cases, those societies could have gone on living just as they always had if not for Europeans invading. They didn't become 'more advanced'; they had their way of life altered or destroyed against their will.<br />The reason they were to continue their way of life for thousands of years, and saw no real need to change it, was because they were content to live similarly to other animals in the forest, not using more than they needed, therefore not depleting their own environment. Our, knowledge based society DOES deplete its own environment, which is why we felt the need to take land from others, and which is why we have come nearly to the end of that endeavor, as the planet has reached a point where it may not be able to sustain us much longer.<br />So while it is true that our modern and 'advanced' society and culture has been able to provide numerous benefits to INDIVIDUALS, it is in fact LESS successful than the way of life of the forest dwellers in the collective, because their way of life can go on and on and on, despite them thinking the sun and the moon are the same size. And ours can't do that, unless we very quickly adjust it and realign it with the sustainability principles that the forest dwellers never lost.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68959443848279174422013-04-09T05:30:57.613-04:002013-04-09T05:30:57.613-04:00Lutesuite, that simply isn't the case. If you ...Lutesuite, that simply isn't the case. If you look at even recent history, you will find that in the Polynesian islands such as Hawaii, Tahiti, etc. tribal culture living sustainably were more or less thriving up until the time the Europeans 'visited'. In Central America you find the same story, and of course in North America as well. <br />So called 'primitive' peoples, living with beliefs that we know to be untrue, but not exterminating themselves, precisely because their way of life, sustainabiity, enable them to continue just like all the other animals they lived among. Forest people are like other 'forest creatures' - they tend not to over-exploit and their way of life can last as long as any other species in the wild. As they say, nature provides, and why would this not be so?<br />It is true that some tribes, obviously, became 'more advanced', but this induced them to require more arable land in order to feed their growing populaces. So, they DID remove the forest people from their lands, just as they removed the forest birds and mammals, etc. <br />But our way of life has reached its limit, because our overexploitation of resources cannot continue on a planet that has only limited resources available to us. An endgame occurs, predictably, in more or less the way that Sagan speculated about.<br />So it is true that our way of life, based on discovery and establishing what is true from what isn't, can yield very real benefits to people at the individual level. But if you want to talk in terms of survivability, you will find forest people being able to go on, and on, and on, in the same way, because their way of life is so close to other animals. They don't use more than they need, thus depleting their own ecosytem. It doesn't matter if they believe the sun and the moon are the same size. What matters is that they don't use more than they need.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18576410495596468162013-04-08T23:44:27.053-04:002013-04-08T23:44:27.053-04:00Dio, I didn't call it a 'dumb idea', s...<i>Dio, I didn't call it a 'dumb idea', so to start off you misquoted me... I called it a dumb line</i><br /><br />Oh! Well that's <i>completely</i> different! I'm so fucking sorry I said "dumb idea" when you really said "dumb line"!<br /><br />But-- I said something false! <b>Why can't you validate my lifestyle, Andy?</b> I have faith that you really said "dumb idea"! Even if it's contradicted by the facts, still, it's faith. I'm a good person and I've made the choice to build my life around the faith that you really said "dumb idea"! Facts be damned. Why can't you validate my life-choices?<br /><br /><i>because it is an example of lazy argumentation.</i><br /><br />Begging the question. What is your evidence Rumraket's "line" is dumb? Your evidence is it's lazy.<br /><br />Your honor, I will prove that the accused killed John F. Kennedy. What is my evidence? My evidence is that he murdered the President. Thus, I have proved my charge.<br /><br />You have no response to Rumraket's excellent argument, so you call it dumb. Pathetic.<br /><br /><i> My relative believes that it is 'good' to do volunteer for worthy causes.</i><br /><br />No Andy, your relative does not believe it is 'good' to do volunteer work. Those are what the facts say-- but I have faith that your relative does not exist. I have chosen to live my life based on that faith. Why can't you validate my life choices?<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82153920559970054702013-04-08T23:34:14.571-04:002013-04-08T23:34:14.571-04:00Byers,
stop bullshitting.
Are skeletons biology ...Byers,<br /><br />stop bullshitting.<br /><br />Are skeletons biology or geology? Simple question.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87671174557458200442013-04-08T23:10:57.573-04:002013-04-08T23:10:57.573-04:00Not true Robert. All information can be evidence, ...Not true Robert. All information can be evidence, even the words in the bible. But there is weak evidence and strong evidence. The evidence in the fossil record is strong. You cannot discount it by declaring it irrelevant. I gather you are saying it doesn't describe evolutionary mechanism, the consequence of biological chemistry. In this you are correct, but no one has claimed otherwise.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6864266513869351022013-04-08T20:12:58.881-04:002013-04-08T20:12:58.881-04:00It's quite simple Andy.
As you say yourself, ...It's quite simple Andy.<br /><br />As you say yourself, it can reasonably said that humans are the only species that have existed on earth to posses what can properly be called beliefs. What is at issue here is the merits of true vs. false beliefs. So your example of species that have thrived without beliefs of any sort is completely irrelevant.<br /><br />Your claim is that primitive societies have disappeared almost entirely as a result of encroachment by more advanced civilizations, being "pushed off their land." That is not the case. They have disappeared because they have <i>become</i> more advanced civilizations. i.e. they have replaced many of their false beliefs with correct ones.<br /><br />Of the 7 billion people now living on earth, what percentage live in primitive hunter/gatherer societies? You think that's just an accident? Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.com