Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2015, 07:28 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 06:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 01:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  Just as the wings of bats and birds are very different, so are the minds of different species. If humans disappeared or had never happened, some other species might develop intelligence.

Why would humans not happening, or disappearing have any real affect of another species developing similar intelligence? Birds developing wings, didn't prevent or hinder bats from developing them independently.

*effect

Humans, by having intelligence, radically change the environment and the selection pressures.
It's possible that our presence might actually increase the chances for another intelligent species to evolve.

My point, however, is that there are no predetermined outcomes for evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 07:33 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 05:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The quotes are dramatically different, in fact the second quote is expressing a fundamental disagreement with the first.

No, it does not. He is simply saying that evolution producing any particular species is highly improbable. He is not commenting on the evolution of intelligence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 07:39 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 07:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 06:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why would humans not happening, or disappearing have any real affect of another species developing similar intelligence? Birds developing wings, didn't prevent or hinder bats from developing them independently.

*effect

Humans, by having intelligence, radically change the environment and the selection pressures.
It's possible that our presence might actually increase the chances for another intelligent species to evolve.

My point, however, is that there are no predetermined outcomes for evolution.

Except of course when complex eyes arise independently over 40 times. Given the existence of particular ecological niche, like the ones present in the cases of eyes developing, we could likely predict that a creature without sight, would likely develop eye-sight in his more distant lineage, because of his occupancy of that particular ecological niche.

Quote:It's possible that our presence might actually increase the chances for another intelligent species to evolve.

Increased how? By natural selection, or did you mean by some form of artificial selection, like genetic engineering or something?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 07:41 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 07:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 07:13 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Well then his response isn't an actual full disagreement of what they were saying.

They weren't saying the evolution of humanoids was inevitable or probable. They're saying the factors could lead that way, but those specific words (I don't know if there was more to the context of their points) weren't saying those things in a definitive way.

No, it's a pretty full-on disagreements. It should also be disclosed that both Kenneth Miller, and Karl Giberson are theists.

But I'm not agreeing with them here, I'm siding with the Coyne, the atheist.

So you now give a source that has a whole lot more context to the point. Still in there, his actual response to the section you quoting out of their, he doesn't immediately put out his quote before he acknowledges what is significant about their quote.

He says "Miller and Giberson are forced to this view for a simple reason. If we cannot prove that humanoid evolution was inevitable,"

He clearly knows that quote there wasn't a certainty claim, that it was put in that loose manner for that purpose. Because it isn't inevitable. I'm sure there is a ton more they actually say about the certainty though especially with that book title.

Now he in a paragraph later goes on to acknowledge scientists don't share Millers "certainty" but you took the quote, said they are disagreeing but they actually aren't. Because the quote of Millers lacks the certainty component. His position may be certain, but based on that singular quote you put out, it's not the case.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 07:42 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 07:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it does not. He is simply saying that evolution producing any particular species is highly improbable. He is not commenting on the evolution of intelligence.


Lol, he's specifically commenting on human intelligence.

"This raises another question. We recognize convergences because unrelated species evolve similar traits. In other words, the traits appear in more than one species. But sophisticated, self-aware intelligence is a singleton: it evolved just once, in a human ancestor. (Octopi and dolphins are also smart, but they do not have the stuff to reflect on their origins.) In contrast, eyes have evolved independently forty times, and white color in Arctic animals appeared several times. It is hard to make a convincing case for the evolutionary inevitability of a feature that arose only once. "
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 07:46 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 07:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 07:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it does not. He is simply saying that evolution producing any particular species is highly improbable. He is not commenting on the evolution of intelligence.


Lol, he's specifically commenting on human intelligence.

"This raises another question. We recognize convergences because unrelated species evolve similar traits. In other words, the traits appear in more than one species. But sophisticated, self-aware intelligence is a singleton: it evolved just once, in a human ancestor. (Octopi and dolphins are also smart, but they do not have the stuff to reflect on their origins.) In contrast, eyes have evolved independently forty times, and white color in Arctic animals appeared several times. It is hard to make a convincing case for the evolutionary inevitability of a feature that arose only once. "

Which is impossible to tell specifically and with certainty with the snitbit of no context you initially posted the quote with... so you find it funny, I find it funny how just either continually foolish or dishonest you truly are, and to what end?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 07:57 AM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2015 08:00 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 07:46 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Which is impossible to tell specifically and with certainty with the snitbit of no context you initially posted the quote with... so you find it funny, I find it funny how just either continually foolish or dishonest you truly are, and to what end?

I'm not being dishonest, whenever I'm accused of dishonesty, it's typically in situations where atheists such as yourself and others, finds themselves in a corner having to contradict themselves. You're basically trying to cover up your dissonance by accusing me of being dishonest. If you think I'm truly being dishonest, why don't you enlighten me on what the purpose of this dishonesty is?

In my experience when in comes to most questions, even ones regarding evolution, most people here only have very basic knowledge of it, even if it's more so than your average person. They clearly don't give as much consideration to these questions as folks who devote themselves to it, for professional reasons, that's for sure. But their confidence on the topic, rarely ever equates with their knowledge of it. So it's not particularly hard for them to find themselves tied in knots. In fact if I were an atheists doing this to a theists, you all would be high-fiving me right now. So please quit your whining about me being dishonest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 08:12 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 07:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 07:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it does not. He is simply saying that evolution producing any particular species is highly improbable. He is not commenting on the evolution of intelligence.


Lol, he's specifically commenting on human intelligence.

"This raises another question. We recognize convergences because unrelated species evolve similar traits. In other words, the traits appear in more than one species. But sophisticated, self-aware intelligence is a singleton: it evolved just once, in a human ancestor. (Octopi and dolphins are also smart, but they do not have the stuff to reflect on their origins.) In contrast, eyes have evolved independently forty times, and white color in Arctic animals appeared several times. It is hard to make a convincing case for the evolutionary inevitability of a feature that arose only once. "

That was not the quote. This is:
(20-05-2015 04:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And the second quote, in which Jerry Coyne disagrees with this entirely:

" In fact, there are good reasons for thinking that the evolution of humanoids was not only not inevitable, but was a priori improbable. "

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 08:13 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 07:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 07:46 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Which is impossible to tell specifically and with certainty with the snitbit of no context you initially posted the quote with... so you find it funny, I find it funny how just either continually foolish or dishonest you truly are, and to what end?

I'm not being dishonest, whenever I'm accused of dishonesty, it's typically in situations where atheists such as yourself and others, finds themselves in a corner having to contradict themselves. You're basically trying to cover up your dissonance by accusing me of being dishonest. If you think I'm truly being dishonest, why don't you enlighten me on what the purpose of this dishonesty is?

In my experience when in comes to most questions, even ones regarding evolution, most people here only have very basic knowledge of it, even if it's more so than your average person. They clearly don't give as much consideration to these questions as folks who devote themselves to it, for professional reasons, that's for sure. But their confidence on the topic, rarely ever equates with their knowledge of it. So it's not particularly hard for them to find themselves tied in knots. In fact if I were an atheists doing this to a theists, you all would be high-fiving me right now. So please quit your whining about me being dishonest.

Quoting an segment of an element. Where he Coyne does the exact sentence prior, make it clear he is talking about higher consciousness(Otherwise called intelligence) but then finding it so hilariously amusing that someone didn't pick up on that.

Yeah, that wasn't directly didn't pick that up because you put up a quote element where it's not specifically clear he is talking about intelligence or just humanoids in a form.

It's either dishonest or Ignorance on your part. I'm at least giving you some benefit of the intelligence of the situation. Calling it dishonest doesn't mean you're deliberately doing it or have a "purpose" to doing it. It can be unintentional. But when you deny it's factor, you're not holding up a stance of attempts to being clear.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 08:14 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 07:46 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Which is impossible to tell specifically and with certainty with the snitbit of no context you initially posted the quote with... so you find it funny, I find it funny how just either continually foolish or dishonest you truly are, and to what end?

I think the quotes fairly clear to me, and in fact quite reasonable, that even I as a theists have to side with Coyne more so than the theist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: