Quote:
Tenspace wrote
And a group of such opinions, backed by the collective evidence of generations of people who devoted their lives to such study, lends credence to those explanations, allowing them to become ensconced in the the body of scientific knowledge as a theory. Just because you can't test it and replicate it doesn't make it any less of an effort. Are you saying that all non-empirical collections of scientific thought are irrelevant because no one was there to test and replicate the event?
|
Not at all. As long as we agree that it's nothing more than "non-empirical collections of scientific thought". The moment some young over-enthusiastic atheist begins holding it up as evidence and proof I've got an issue to settle.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Smells like fresh straw, to me. You sure that's even a stated position?
|
Do a post search on
calpurnpiso to get started.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
So, you are one of the "no one was there, therefore we can never understand it" camp. Do you also discount the fossil record, plate tectonics, and the birth of Jesus? Afterall, no one was there to observe any of those events.
|
There's lots of different kinds of evidence. We all observe the same writings, artifacts, events, phenomenon, processes, principles, etc. Much of it is cut and dry obvious facts that we can agree on and don't really represent any legitimate argument or controversy.
However, the vast majority is subject to the problem of accurate interpretation which can be difficult to say the least. You have to admit, scientists often disagree even with peer reviewed lab results. Just because an explanation sounds plausible and gains consensus doesn't necessarily mean that it's accurate or factual. Therefore to become dogmatic over a "collection of scientific thoughts" is quite a different situation from, say for example, relativity which can be observed, tested, measured, repeated in lab and nature.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Furthermore, an 'educated opinion', is the foundation of the scientific community - kinda like that little brown paper wrapper that holds your Reese Cup. It was just an 'educated opinion' that drove Fermi, Pauli, and other proponents of the quantum theory. Hell, exclusion was just a principle, not a fact!
|
Again, I don't have a problem with that. But lets be realistic. If we could compile all the "scientific opinion" throughout history that now now resides in the garbage heap, how would that compare to what still holds water? Ask Edison how many ways he learned NOT to make an incandescent lamp.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Then use the proper terminology, please. When referring to the origins of the separation of diploids into two distinct sexes, call it sex. If you're discussing whether He said or She said, call them genders.
|
I'm no genetic biologist. I'll leave the terms to you.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
I suggest you read a bit deeper than the wikipedia.org page. You'll find great references at pbs.org, indiana.edu, and nih.gov. The RQ hypothesis, as you mentioned, didn't even begin to discuss sex; and Darwin knew nothing of genetics, either. My point is that as the hypothesis gained an audience, it was applied to other evolutionary subjects, and goes quite a long way in explaining oddities, such as the human female's immune system reaction to testosterone, and the fact that the placental sac is genetically encoded in males only, on the y chromosome.
|
No doubt there are vast differences between the sexes that make sense in regards to reproduction. I wouldn't expect to find anything different in created beings.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Good for you.
|
Funny. So all these mutations that are supposedly beneficial to survival of a species can be allegedly explained if they need explaining to further the theory. However, it appears that we're observing many cases of genetic degeneration among a variety of species. That doesn't really make much sense for a reproduction scheme that "developed with the intention of providing benefit" to a species, now does it?
As I pointed out...Single cell organisms STILL exist in a variety of forms and seem to be built for longevity. We haven't observed any evidence of a need for male/female amoebas.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Argh. Who said anything about convergence? That last paragraph really lays open to all your understanding (or lack thereof) of evolutionary theory. It's a mutation that lies at the base of the prokaryotic revolution. It appears that subsequent asexual reproduction in non-protists is the exception.
|
Oh, I'll admit I couldn't identify a
prokaryotic revolution if it surround my nation with canons and muskets. All I know is? For a sex mutation to take place it in evolution it would take a long long time AND the species would have to continue reproducing asexually until the sex mutation was complete and functioning.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Well, you tell me what I was thinking, then. Those here who know me would state that I'm not the type to dream up gap-filling stories. I rip people for not citing their sources, and I'm the uber-skeptic when it comes to unfounded conjecture.
|
You seem reasonable when it comes to evidence. I'm not saying YOU dream them up. But somehow "a collection of scientific thought" comes about. Now, I've got nothing against brain storming and abstract thinking or problem solving. I just want to keep the cloud of speculation separated from scientific "evidence and facts" that some like to put forth. That's really all.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
The evidence is all around you. All lifeforms are transitional. Just pick your poison, and study what lies within. Neotony? Convergent evolution? Sexual dimorphism? There are stages of life all over the globe that provide strong empirical support to any of these theories.
|
I don't have any doubt or question about variation of species who breed, crossbreed, inbreed and adapt, change, and adjust in response to a whole host of variables over thousands of years. There's lots of different types of birds, butterflies, flowers, fish, etc. However, that's pretty much it.
Then again snails, ferns, mollusks, claims and fruit flies all seem to be hearty long surviving species with little need for change. I imagine there's plenty more doing just fine.