|
Post by socold on Jan 22, 2009 22:16:48 GMT
And that nut is an Evolutionary Biologist. He has swapped one myth for another.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 22, 2009 23:21:44 GMT
socold, Surprised?
a myth is a narrative used to give meaning to reality. Myths are not necessarily wrong, just unprovable. We cannot "prove" evolution, though people can argue back and forth on that topic for years.
Evolution is part of the entire Victorian Myth of "Progress". It is also a form of religion, and you can't falsify it, because it is an interpretative framework, not Science.
Of course, in a world of chance & chaos, Evolution cannot have "progress", or lead to "higher" forms of life. This is just nonsense, but such thinking was built into the Victorian theory of Evolution.
Right or wrong, it is a Myth ;D
There is no point arguing against a Myth.
From Wikipedia:
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 23, 2009 1:44:23 GMT
Sounds like your problem is with some sort of philosophy I have never heard of rather than the theory of biological evolution, which is indeed a solid scientific theory.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 23, 2009 2:00:30 GMT
Socold, please feel free to display your lack of education. Your whole approach seems overly simplistic. Life & the Universe doesn't have the answer 42.
The philosophy of science, (start with Thomas Kuhn) is something all educated scientists should be familiar with.
Epistemology is also a necessary subject: The primary question that epistemology addresses is "What is knowledge?"
Go and study for a few years and come back when you've gained a little in intellectual stature.
The theory of evolution is a myth (technically speaking). Thomas Kuhn would call it a paradigm. It is an interpreting framework, and bares all the marks of a religion, the same as AGW. That was the point, that Brook has moved from one such area to another.
PS: A bit of History of Science might be useful also. An excellent start is "The Copernican Revolution" by Thomas Kuhn.
I'd like to suggest something on Scientific development in the 1800's which would be useful - about the myth of progress (which came out of the Industrial Revolution). No good book springs to mind.
PPS: There are many, many theories of evolution, some discredited, and some actively under discussion. It is not "settled" science. (So I can figure that Socold is NOT an evolutionary biologist! ;D) As soon as I see "solid scientific theory", I know there is no real substance! The bitter debates among evolutionists is only matched by the debates with those who follow 7 day creationism.
Science will not ever settle that debate, since all data will always be interpreted within the myth or paradigm of the observer.
|
|
|
Post by diebels on Jan 23, 2009 7:19:27 GMT
PPS: There are many, many theories of evolution, some discredited, and some actively under discussion. It is not "settled" science. (So I can figure that Socold is NOT an evolutionary biologist! ;D) As soon as I see "solid scientific theory", I know there is no real substance! The bitter debates among evolutionists is only matched by the debates with those who follow 7 day creationism. Science will not ever settle that debate, since all data will always be interpreted within the myth or paradigm of the observer. Are you kidding? Which parts of this wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact do you disagree with. And do you have any references?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 23, 2009 7:49:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tucker on Jan 23, 2009 10:11:06 GMT
PPS: There are many, many theories of evolution, some discredited, and some actively under discussion. It is not "settled" science. (So I can figure that Socold is NOT an evolutionary biologist! ;D) As soon as I see "solid scientific theory", I know there is no real substance! The bitter debates among evolutionists is only matched by the debates with those who follow 7 day creationism. Science will not ever settle that debate, since all data will always be interpreted within the myth or paradigm of the observer. Are you kidding? Which parts of this wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact do you disagree with. And do you have any references? I get Kiwi's point after initially thinking he had lost it. He is not saying that adaptation from a particular species within evolution is a myth. He is saying that all of the adaptations seen do not necessarily mean that the ultimate evolution (top of the pyramid) is homo sapien. Each species evolves in and of itself. I think? The Victorians needed to assign Darwin's work as God's hand in producing the preminence of humans. That way, evolution and creation could co-exist. Kiwi is simply debunking that portion of evolution. Sorry to the mods for straying slightly into religion, but it was hard to reply without some context. Tom
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 23, 2009 10:43:18 GMT
Evolutioon has a similar problem to agw - why does the system change?
In evolution as proposed in mainstream biology, the theory states that the mechanism is mutation, that some changes in genetic structure are benign & become beneficial when the environment alters. Or some are actually beneficial & in either case, those possessing the new traits get to breed more than those without.
ELE's are a problem. (Extinction Level Events) There have been numerous of them - and after, the increase in species numbers goes through the roof. We're faced with one of two possibilities - an ELE leads to a sudden & dramatic increase in the numbers of beneficial mutations or something else drives the creation of new species & genera.
In agw, the amount of CO2 is the problem - for agw to be correct, CO2 has to be the prime driver of temperature - but then we have both lower & higher CO2 events in history - why didn't the climate runaway then? What is the mechanism that changes the climate back in the other direction?
Either CO2 is NOT the prime driver, or it works in mysterious ways. Unlike climate in general, the CO2 mechanism is quite well understood - if it is hiding some strange behaviour, there's a lot of chemistry & physics will need rewriting.
In both cases the logical assumption is to go with the one that doesn't require rewriting of basic understandings - evolution is something other than random mutation, & climate is something more than a CO2 phenomena.
And no, I am not a creationist, nor do I have a cuase to push. But Kiwi has a point - they are both qualified as Myth, & 'knowing' them as Truth is belief in the definition of 'knowing without evidence.'
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 23, 2009 12:04:04 GMT
Evolutioon has a similar problem to agw - why does the system change? In evolution... ...ELE's are a problem. (Extinction Level Events) There have been numerous of them - and after, the increase in species numbers goes through the roof. We're faced with one of two possibilities - an ELE leads to a sudden & dramatic increase in the numbers of beneficial mutations or something else drives the creation of new species & genera. This comes from not fully understanding the interconnectedness of the system. A mass extinction results from a horrible upset in the environment. The tiny niches exploited by specialists are reduced causing the entire species to die (there's nothing else for them to do) while species adapted to be generalists simply exploit whatever environments and resources are available. This results in a mass extinction of all but the most fit generalists (or on occasion very lucky specialists). After things get better most of the original niches still exist and some of the generalists subgroups speciate into specialists to take advantage of the special niches. This is all exactly what the theory of evolution predicts and exactly what happens. Exactly. The behavior of CO2 simply does not account for the increases. To deal with that shortfall AGW types usually point to "feedbacks" but completely ignore the fact that...ANYTHING that changes temperature would affect the feedbacks. They'll say "Oh, solar forcing obviously only had a .1C impact on temperature" but all of the solar forcing we've had good observations of (until recently) involves very small changes over extremely short periods of time...followed by extremely active solar maximums. The duration of minimums between most of the recent sunspot cycles has been far too short to have a large impact on those feedbacks. Ah but now the sun's probably going to give us a great example of what a prolonged lack of solar activity can do. We'll have had at least three years of rock bottom activity followed by possibly an order of magnitude less activity during the maximum. I'll wager the feedbacks (if there are any) will kick in then...especially since it hit at the start of the PDO switch. So...obviously from what we can see NOW, a very significant amount of the recent warming had to have been solar forcing. A lot of the recent warming was due to the warm phase of the PDO. What was left is (supposedly) CO2 forcing...that same solar forcing that they've now conceded would probably result in only 1.5C even if we DOUBLED CO2, yet we only added about 35%. Since feedbacks (if there are any significant feedbacks) are at the mercy of the net imbalance...do you think the feedbacks are going to shift toward cooling because of the huge loss of heat from the PDO and solar forcing ...or up because of the anemic CO2 changes we've had?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 23, 2009 14:54:33 GMT
Thanks for the link to the blog - I found the most telling passage to be this: "The warming partisans at RealClimate.org have claimed that a cooling Antarctica is just what the models predict! “A cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict,” stated a February 12, 2008, post on Real Climate titled “Antarctica is Cold? Yeah, We Knew That.” The website claimed “Despite the recent announcement that the discharge from some Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century.”
So which is it? Models predict Antarctic cooling or do they predict warming? If Antarctica is now allegedly warming, why didn’t the models predict that? The spin by Michael Mann of RealClimate.org and the media on this study is stunning. "This is a long way of saying "whatever happens proves AGW"This totally devalues any claim to a scientific approach by the more zealot proponents of AGW.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 23, 2009 22:21:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 23, 2009 22:38:17 GMT
Socold, please feel free to display your lack of education. Your whole approach seems overly simplistic. Life & the Universe doesn't have the answer 42. The philosophy of science, (start with Thomas Kuhn) is something all educated scientists should be familiar with. Epistemology is also a necessary subject: The primary question that epistemology addresses is "What is knowledge?" Go and study for a few years and come back when you've gained a little in intellectual stature. The theory of evolution is a myth (technically speaking). Thomas Kuhn would call it a paradigm. It is an interpreting framework, and bares all the marks of a religion, the same as AGW. That was the point, that Brook has moved from one such area to another. PS: A bit of History of Science might be useful also. An excellent start is "The Copernican Revolution" by Thomas Kuhn. I'd like to suggest something on Scientific development in the 1800's which would be useful - about the myth of progress (which came out of the Industrial Revolution). No good book springs to mind. PPS: There are many, many theories of evolution, some discredited, and some actively under discussion. It is not "settled" science. (So I can figure that Socold is NOT an evolutionary biologist! ;D) As soon as I see "solid scientific theory", I know there is no real substance! The bitter debates among evolutionists is only matched by the debates with those who follow 7 day creationism. Science will not ever settle that debate, since all data will always be interpreted within the myth or paradigm of the observer. At the level you are talking about it, it is settled science. That different species share common ancestors, eg that humans descended from ape-like ancestors is settled science. I am seeing a pattern here...
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 23, 2009 22:49:05 GMT
Exactly. The behavior of CO2 simply does not account for the increases. To deal with that shortfall AGW types usually point to "feedbacks" but completely ignore the fact that...ANYTHING that changes temperature would affect the feedbacks. Yes and the models agree that anything that changes temperature would be amplified by the water vapor feedback and ice albedo feedback. One of the main reasons for the concept of radiative forcing is precisely to allow a change in two climate forcings to be compared. For example a 1wm-2 solar irradiance forcing and 1wm-2 greenhouse gas forcing are equivalent in the temperature response because feedbacks apply to both equally. That's including feedbacks. If you take a climate sensitivity with no feedback then the amount would be smaller. But it is what it is, I believe that figure is actually derived from detecting it in the temperature records rather than deriving it from the forcing.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 23, 2009 22:55:09 GMT
Arctic ice extent continues sideways.. 2004, 2008 and 2009 have almost identical extents at this time. And yes, please continue the debate on evolution in the Open Forum. For those who don't understand the nature of scientific thought, they might do a bit of reading. And just because I call Evolution a myth doesn't make it wrong. I accept that life has proceeded from simple forms to advanced forms over billions of years. I am not a Darwinist, nor a 7 day Creationist. If I ever want to say more than that I'll say it on the Open Forum. As Captain Nemo says "I walk a different path" The point was the Brook was working in one non-experimental Science where theory predominates, to another. (So it was easy to change disciplines! Same Modus operandi) How often do "real" scientists change disciplines? There is real data gathering out there, but most of it is being interpreted by a theory, rather that impartially evaluated. Even to the point that the conclusions are decided even before the experiment starts (as in when did you stop beating your wife: solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=176&page=1#2910We see this when media report "thinning of ice" when it is solely the prediction of a model, and no actual science was done.
|
|
|
Post by Ole Doc Sief on Jan 24, 2009 0:35:06 GMT
At the level you are talking about it, it is settled science. That different species share common ancestors, eg that humans descended from ape-like ancestors is settled science. I am seeing a pattern here... Hmmm.....please show me the transition species; we really have kind of scoured the geologic record and I don't see the transitions that Evolutionary Theory would require. So 'settled science' in your 'Evoulution is fact' church, is still just a myth in my 'It ain't fact till I can touch,see,smell,feel, or observe it' church. Evolution is very much a religion, it is a believe system that certain tenants are accepted as fact based on faith of related observations occurring so, therefore, my base assumption is fact. Not really picking on you Socold, but trying to convince Kiwi to join your religion of 'Evolution is fact' really would require a suspension of basic beliefs akin to belief in Scientology. Just because you and your fellow believers think you have the truth, does not make us believe. It requires an act of 'faith in your tenants' to 'convert' to your religion...Kiwi is too much of a realist to fall for fake religions and false gods. Once you have been around for a while you'll learn that just because they teach it at University doesn't make it the truth.
|
|