Perspectives on Evolution

[bennyboy]

I find it impossible to put up with this much idiocy from you, man, lol.  I have higher standards for you than for any of the random evolution objecting loons we get.

I don't object to evolution. i object to the way in which metaphorical and objective language is mixed in talking about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Back to metaphor, again.  A car pool isn't a pool and it isn't made of cars.  

You can have fun objecting to the language all you like....but if that's what you're going to do, find better objections.

Yes, there's a gene pool, not a metaphoric gene pool...the actual stock of all genetic material.  Yes, that stock undergoes a process of change over time.  Not a metaphoric process, a literal process of change. Yes, we've seen it, can demonstrate it, and have documented it. Now, tell me more about metaphors and how you object to metaphors, because that's relevant.................

[Brian37]

Evolution is one of the areas in science that bother me.  It's not that I don't believe in it-- in fact, I think evolution is a fundamental property of any system with complexity, bonded interactions, and time.

My problem is that when we talk about the evolution of a species, we are talking about a species as though it's a thing.  This strikes me as somewhat mythological: humans cannot evolve (except in a different sense intellectually perhaps), but what it means to be human is slowly shifting-- there's a kind of Archetypal Man who is changing over time, both genetically and memetically (if I can coin that term).


So what, exactly, is changing over time?  Nothing, in fact, is changing, at all, ever, in evolution, any more than colors change from red to blue in a rainbow.  Nothing is developed, and yet it obviously IS developed.

If you accept evolution as fact, then even if it bothers you, then your objections are moot. Facts don't change.

If anything were to change in the scientific fact of evolution, it wouldn't cause a flat out debunking, it would just get a updated tweak. Just like astrophysicists once thought our galaxy was the extent of the universe, bigger telescopes came along and caused us to rethink the size of the universe.

All science is still based on the same principle of observation, testing, falsification, control groups and peer review. So in regards to evolution, anything new we discover in the future will still not negate that all DNA that creates different looks is still a shuffle, like a deck of cards. The back of the card is the DNA all life shares, and the face card are the tiny differences that change over long periods of time that cause each card to look slightly different.

I am not really sure what your objection would be, or should be if you accept evolution as fact.

[Mermaid]

Why do you believe humans can't evolve?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why do you believe humans can't evolve?

Because he's never evolved. He watched for one whole day and nothing happened. QED

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes.  You don’t “age”.   Your cells get replaced by a new set of cells which are more decrepit. In fact you don’t even exist as a person, but a statistical phenomenon. That which was you is mostly gone.  A whole new set of cells in poorer condition now make up a new bag of mostly water that had stolen your identity.

Now you're getting somewhere!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Pertinent passage, for my money:

Ted Sider and others have proposed that considering objects to extend across time as four-dimensional causal series of three-dimensional "time-slices" could solve the ship of Theseus problem because, in taking such an approach, all four dimensional objects remain numerically identical to themselves while allowing individual time-slices to differ from each other. The aforementioned river, therefore, comprises different three-dimensional time-slices of itself while remaining numerically identical to itself across time; one can never step into the same river-time-slice twice, but one can step into the same (four-dimensional) river twice.

Obviously doesn't pertain directly to an abstract such as evolution, but could be fairly applied to the species model, passing through time.

[ignoramus]

BB, don't stress! It's just a theory anyway!

(sorry man, I couldn't resist)

[Brian37]

I find it impossible to put up with this much idiocy from you, man, lol.  I have higher standards for you than for any of the random evolution objecting loons we get.

I don't object to evolution.  i object to the way in which metaphorical and objective language is mixed in talking about it.

Ok, I think I might be understanding you better now, feel free to correct me if I am getting it wrong.

We both accept evolution as fact.

But judged on this response, and again, if I am getting it wrong,  correct me.

Language is all humans have to communicate. Words to a layperson cannot be, and should not be confused for how when scientists use language.

So when I first responded to you about describing evolution like a deck of cards, I wasn't literally calling the DNA shuffle a deck of cards. But merely trying to give the reader a simplistic understanding of how it works without the technical deep detail. But I didn't come up with that metaphor to explain evolution, I got that from Richard Dawkins.

If I am understanding you correctly, the same thing can be said with the word "theory". Fearful gullible people use that word to say "that is just a guess". When scientist use the same word, it is not the same thing. "Theory" as used by science means observations rigorously tested and falsified and beat the shit out of by fellow scientists that still stand up to having the tires kicked.

There is no way to avoid human language. You can only point out the different uses in different contexts.

Even with conveying scientific concepts, I like metaphor. I can tell you if it were not for other atheists in my 16 years trying to explain concepts to me with metaphor, I would not have the knowledge in my head I do now.

Lets put it this way. Not everyone will understand the math and science and physics and technology to build a car from scratch. But everyone can understand the simple concept of a combustion engine, even if they cant build the car.

Point being, language is the only thing we have to communicate. There are always going to be people who twist what you say to suit their own agenda.