A Civil Discussion: Evolution, Science, Theology, Atheism, Climate

I can't even respect my peers here.

Rationality and empiricism versus superstition, 1..2...3 debate!

Fuck that. Is that where we are as a country? Fuck that, fuck them, and the horses they road in on.

This is 14th century shit. Fucking stop being idiots.
 
Micawber said:
I can't even respect my peers here.

Rationality and empiricism versus superstition, 1..2...3 debate!

Fuck that. Is that where we are as a country? Fuck that, fuck them, and the horses they road in on.

This is 14th century shit. Fucking stop being idiots.
Click to expand...

Awwww. What did Evince, Domer and the others like you with an IQ lower than whale shit do now?
 
Thing1 said:
Again - music is art.

Cetaceans also have a level of socialization & intelligence that exceeds what they need to survive. Honestly, it sounds like you only know the basics about how they live (which is understandable - I don't mean that in a derogatory way). But their behaviors go WELL beyond the "mimicking" that anatta was talking about, or just basic survival. They're really pretty close to on par w/ humans, just in a different environment.

And you really overlook the vast importance of the opposable thumb in the development of our civilization. Cetaceans don't have that, so of course are lacking in things like architecture and advanced tool use.
Click to expand...

We can call whale songs ‘art’ but that doesn’t make it so.

Again, their intelligence is adapted to their environment so their ‘art’ is probably no more than an ovulating whale singing ‘I’m over here guys’ lol. Throughout the animal kingdom different songs, tweets, horn blows and etc are mating adaptations.

Beautiful as it may be, to call it ‘art’ is to ascribe a human quality to it.



But whales generally, are ruled by evolutionary principles, right? And evolution proceeds modestly over time. It also works economically, in the sense that you don’t end up with species whose fitness exceeds their need to survive.

Whales don’t need art—-they just need to eat, avoid predation and survive to propogate another generation. That’s all Darwin requires and their intelligence reflects that principle. They can seem highly intelligent, by animal standards and when behaving in their environment, but as pointed out previously, they seemed utterly incapable of learning that humans are dangerous.

Wild turkeys are much more ‘intelligent’ by that metric.

Which brings us back to humans. Why are we so intelligent when it’s not a biological or Darwinian necessity for propagation of our species. If virtually all living beings only had an IQ of 80 we’d still be easily intelligent enough to take over the planet.

Something doesn’t add up.
 
Darth Omar said:
We can call whale songs ‘art’ but that doesn’t make it so.

Again, their intelligence is adapted to their environment so their ‘art’ is probably no more than an ovulating whale singing ‘I’m over here guys’ lol. Throughout the animal kingdom different songs, tweets, horn blows and etc are mating adaptations.

Beautiful as it may be, to call it ‘art’ is to ascribe a human quality to it.



But whales generally, are ruled by evolutionary principles, right? And evolution proceeds modestly over time. It also works economically, in the sense that you don’t end up with species whose fitness exceeds their need to survive.

Whales don’t need art—-they just need to eat, avoid predation and survive to propogate another generation. That’s all Darwin requires and their intelligence reflects that principle. They can seem highly intelligent, by animal standards and when behaving in their environment, but as pointed out previously, they seemed utterly incapable of learning that humans are dangerous.

Wild turkeys are much more ‘intelligent’ by that metric.

Which brings us back to humans. Why are we so intelligent when it’s not a biological or Darwinian necessity for propagation of our species. If virtually all living beings only had an IQ of 80 we’d still be easily intelligent enough to take over the planet.

Something doesn’t add up.
Click to expand...

I mean, your whole thing on whale songs in the beginning is literally just off the top of your head.

Read about whales & their songs, and then discuss it. I really don't have time for uninformed meanderings.
 
Thing1 said:
I mean, your whole thing on whale songs in the beginning is literally just off the top of your head.

Read about whales & their songs, and then discuss it. I really don't have time for uninformed meanderings.
Click to expand...

What are you saying, whales sing the blues lol?

Or like Whaling Jennings?
 
Thing1 said:
I mean, your whole thing on whale songs in the beginning is literally just off the top of your head.

Read about whales & their songs, and then discuss it. I really don't have time for uninformed meanderings.
Click to expand...

Whales are communicating with each other by making sounds. It isn't art. We humans like to call them "songs". They are not making these sounds to please or entertain us. It's just a happy coincidence that they do.
 
Stretch said:
Whales are communicating with each other by making sounds. It isn't art. We humans like to call them "songs". They are not making these sounds to please or entertain us. It's just a happy coincidence that they do.
Click to expand...
How do you know they don’t make sounds to please us?
 
Thing1 said:
I mean, your whole thing on whale songs in the beginning is literally just off the top of your head.
Read about whales & their songs, and then discuss it. I really don't have time for uninformed meanderings.
Click to expand...

You can just as accurately say the same thing about song birds' songs. They have mating calls, territorial songs, alarm calls, chirps and beeps and "scratches" and other sounds that are very similar to human speech. They even name their children.* I spend a lot of time outdoors esp. in the warm months. I hear their speech, observe their interactions and how they respond to the speech of their people and to individuals as well. The corvids are especially fascinating to hang out with. We're all used to the strident calls of crows and blue jays and ravens. But catch them in social interactions and you'll hear a whole new beautiful vocabulary. If you are still and quiet and let them get used to you being in their place, you can learn to mimic their speech and -- if you are patient enough to figure out what the sounds mean -- you can get a positive reaction. We are strangers in a strange land, in the forest. We didn't used to be this way, till we closed ourselves in buildings and insulated ourselves from nature and away from our fellow brothers and sisters.

* http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/07/parrots-learn-their-names-their-parents
 
Mott the Hoople said:
In science you either revise your theory based on the knowledge gained by the newly discovered facts unless the newly discovered facts falsify the theory and the theory is no longer usable. Then you toss that theory and replace it with a new one.

Remember, a scientific theory isn't an absolute fact. It is based on fact but the purpose of a scientific theory is to model specific natural phenomena or related groups of natural events. If newly discovered facts contradict the existing facts that support a scientific theory than that theory must be revised to eliminate that contradiction.

A good example of that would be evolutionary theory. Darwin based his theory on three foundational facts. However the true weakness of Darwin's theory when he postulated it was though he understood it's factual basis, he did not understand what the actual mechanism driving biological evolution was. He predicted though that it would be discovered. Interestingly enough is that that mechanism had already been discovered by a cloistered monk, Gregor Mendell, who did not publish his work. It wasn't until after Darwins death and at the turn of the 20th century that Mendell's laws of genetic were published. With this knowledge of the laws of genetics it was understood that genetics were the driving mechanism of evolution by natural selection and the theory was revised accordingly. One problem though. We didn't know what the functional mechanism of genetics were so there was still a weakness in both theories (genetics and evolution) and then DNA and other nucleic acids were discovered. Now the functional mechanism of both genetics and evolution are known and studied and evolutionary theory was again revised to it's current Neo-Darwinism definition of "a change in allele frequency within a population over time.".

Another example was how gravitational theory has been revised do to new facts discovered. When Newton promulgated gravitational theory and the law of gravity he only defined its mechanical physical properties. 350 years later this guy named Einstein discovered that not only does gravity have mechanical physical properties but that it also has relativistic properties on both time and space. Gravitational theory had to be revised to include our new understanding of the relativistic physical properties of gravity along with its mechanical physical properties.

These are two examples of how theories are advanced over time and there is always a possibility, even if remote, some fact could be discovered that falsifies the theory and then that theory must be tossed and replaced by one that includes that newly discovered fact.
Click to expand...

In other words, with scientific theory, you can be wrong yet claim to still be right if you make enough excuses about it. Got it.
 
Nordberg said:
Such as what? So far all the evidence backs the theories.IF they had contradictions, they would respect them. Science is not working to back a theory. It goes where it goes. But this is speculative. Religion blocks evidence to maintain a belief. Science does not.
Click to expand...

Since science is speculative, it can't be based on fact.
 
CFM said:
In other words, with scientific theory, you can be wrong yet claim to still be right if you make enough excuses about it. Got it.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. All theories have to falsifiable in principle. This makes science self correcting for when it is wrong. For example if you drop an object and it travels at a tangent from your body instead of towards the center of the earth you will have falsified the theory of gravity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top