Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Because if people look at designed things as being evolved, they won't necessarily look at evolved things as being designed.
I don't believe that is true. If I look at something designed, like a pen, as something that has evolved (and it has over time), it will only reinforce seeing natural things as evolved, not the only way around.
example? well sure. at the time of newton, light was thought to be either a particle or a wave. newtons supported the particle hypothesis while others supported the wave hypothesis. when initially light was seen to be wave like apparently, it was called the "wave theory of light" ofcourse that wasnt a very good theory{the definition u gave represents a GOOD theory} and later on evidence was also found in quntum mechanics and inertia etc for particle properties and now its called the wave particle duality which is a good theory.
zeal ex. for your prposition to hold significance, you should give evidence. for starters, why dont you try and describe from your point of view, WHAT isolated characteristics in things make people beleive that they are evolved and not created which can be generalised to all forms of design, from toys to cosmic laws.
yea it can. hypotheticodeductive method. hypothesis=guess/proposition based on evidence but not having evidence for itself. if its good it will follow the positivist tradition and make clear and testable corellation and clear predictions. those are the type that are taken seriously and stand the test of time.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yea it can. hypotheticodeductive method. hypothesis=guess/proposition based on evidence but not having evidence for itself. if its good it will follow the positivist tradition and make clear and testable corellation and clear predictions. those are the type that are taken seriously and stand the test of time.
You're missing the point. You're correct on hypothesis, but wrong on the transition. A theory, by definitoin is more than just one hypothesis. A theory reaches beyong the scope of any individal hypothesis , as it incorporates multiple related hypothesis. In your assessment, a theory is just a giant hypothesis. A theory cannot be diretly tested by a single experiment; it is composed of individual hypothesis and falsifiable by hypothesises contrary to the theory.
In simpler terms, a scientific theory is not a "right or wrong" (this is a hypothesis) but a larger conception of related right or wrong answers beyond the scope of the original hypotheses.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonI look at a flower and think "I hope this shuts her up". 😄
Evolution is way too slow of a process to be able to see in nature without detailed study and observation. I don't look at a flower and say "wow! that evolved". However, I also don't look at a flower and say "wow! someone made that".
^^^ I can't find the original post, but shakya is incorrect. Evolution can actually is actaully more likely a rapid progress with intermitant periods of adaptive change.
The probelm with experiments that study speciation is that they're too large to be conducted in laboratories (without ungodly amounts of funding that no one wants to pay). But, when we try to do them in the environment, there is no way we can cotrol all the variables to a point where we can difinatively gauge evolution.
Thus, its not a matter of speed, but of feasability. Evolution is well studied in laboratories.
Originally posted by Alliance
^^^ I can't find the original post, but shakya is incorrect. Evolution can actually is actaully more likely a rapid progress with intermitant periods of adaptive change.The probelm with experiments that study speciation is that they're too large to be conducted in laboratories (without ungodly amounts of funding that no one wants to pay). But, when we try to do them in the environment, there is no way we can cotrol all the variables to a point where we can difinatively gauge evolution.
Thus, its not a matter of speed, but of feasability. Evolution is well studied in laboratories.
Can you show support for evolution being rapid? Everything I have read describes evolution as a extremely slow process. However, the true is most likely in the middle, for it might be both.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can you show support for evolution being rapid? Everything I have read describes evolution as a extremely slow process. However, the true is most likely in the middle, for it might be both.
Slow and fast become redefined in evolution. Evolution is always a slow process. What Alliance is referring to (I think) is a modified theory involving something called punctuated equilibrium. A species will undergo no significant changes for a period of time...usually hundreds, possibly thousands of years. Then, due to a change in environment, many changes will take place at once, then the species will level off again for a time. But the "rapid change" could still be tens of thousands of years, simply because evolution is working with an unfathomably long period of time.
Both are still evolutionary models. There's no debate that evolution doesn't happens. But the argument is over the rate of change...steady and constant, or punctuated and intermittent.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Slow and fast become redefined in evolution. Evolution is always a slow process. What Alliance is referring to (I think) is a modified theory involving something called punctuated equilibrium. A species will undergo no significant changes for a period of time...usually hundreds, possibly thousands of years. Then, due to a change in environment, many changes will take place at once, then the species will level off again for a time. But the "rapid change" could still be tens of thousands of years, simply because evolution is working with an unfathomably long period of time.Both are still evolutionary models. There's no debate that evolution doesn't happens. But the argument is over the rate of change...steady and constant, or punctuated and intermittent.
I remember reading about punctuated equilibrium. Animals like Alligators support that theory.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
A change of perspective. Anyway, the entire point of my original post was to show that the idea of "design vs. evolution" could be turned around on ID theorists, so the teleological argument is fairly useless.
but u havent proven it have you? infact u seem to be unable to do so. ill admit there is sum basis to it but not in the way your trying to use it.
I think the main point of what "zeal" was trying to describe would be related to meme theory.
Like, most things that people design are not novel things. They incorporate parts of other things (memes) that have a use to solve a problem (a selective process).
And I do personally believe that this interpretation of culture would do exactly what he thinks it would. One would have a hard time thinking that a computer could be evolved over time through human creation, but that the flagellum of a bacteria couldn't have.
Human selection vs natural selection is the difficult part of the metaphor, but I would advise people that the idea of people "designing" tools to evolve is not nearly as conscious of a process as they would think.
Originally posted by inimalist
I think the main point of what "zeal" was trying to describe would be related to meme theory.
Of course it would, with you analyzing it.
😛
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I remember reading about punctuated equilibrium. Animals like Alligators support that theory.
Yeah. I'm not sure where the consensus lies with this issue among biologists, since it's not universally accepted. But it seems to fit certain species models.