Author Topic: Episode #146  (Read 11618 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline rico

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: Episode #146
« Reply #75 on: May 17, 2008, 02:37:54 AM »
Great episode. Thanks for responding to my email about misconceptions of evolution on the air. It totally caught me off guard as I was walking back from dinner listening. That made my day.

The transitional fossil point was something I wasn't really aware of. I used to debate this topic very much from the creationist angle. In the circles I was in the teachings of "Dr" Kent Hovind(aka Dr Dino) were what a lot of us were going off of to form our opinions on evolution. He has videos and debates with professors from various universities. If you don't know anything about evolution its very convincing. Now I realize its either -lie after lie after lie- or -logical fallacy after logical fallacy after logical fallacy-. If you've never seen him you should search him on YouTube. He has a whole seminar devoted to "lies in the textbooks". He shows evidence for evolution that has been debunked but still shows up in the textbooks. He said there are no transitional fossils (and I believed him because he was Christian and he had a PhD, which I found out later was from a christian diploma mill. Someone got hold of his dissertation and it was ridiculous.) He even goes so far as to put a spoon a fork and a knife next to each other during a debate to prove that just because somethings have similar features it doesn't mean they didn't evolved from one another.
If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.
  - Hermann Hesse

Offline Bad

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: Episode #146
« Reply #76 on: May 17, 2008, 02:21:43 PM »
The key thing that people like him never tell you is that it isn't just "similar features" we're looking at, but a very specific pattern of similarities AND dissimilarities that we find throughout nature across all the collections of various traits we find in all organisms both geographically and in time.  It's a pattern that is specific and distinctive to ancestral relation.
The Bad Idea Blog - Science, Skepticism, Silly.  YOU CANNOT RESIST.

Offline wannabeplato

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Episode #146
« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2008, 12:37:15 AM »
Evil Eye - I disagree. The hyperadaptationalist perspective is that everything evolved for the purposes for which is is currently used. In the softball example, Chapman was perplexed because he could not think of an evolutionary explanation for chivalry on a baseball diamond. The point is - the behavior could be do to a trait that evolved for some other purpose that then happens to influence behavior in sports.

The piano example is apt - because we did evolve to recognize patterns - but not to play the piano. The ability to play the piano is an unintended consequence. Playing the piano also requires finger dexterity - finger dexterity that we evolved for reasons that have nothing to do with playing the piano.

What you are doing is just generalizing the example. You could say that we evolved finger dexterity to manipulate tools and that the piano is a tool - which is true enough, but it misses the point of "hyperadaptationalism". In essence you are describing an appropriate adaptationist approach.

Is the statement, 'Evolved to ...' misleading in any case?  We didn't evolve to do anything, just as a consequence of the evolution of our DNA we do things, and they either help or hurt.  When they help, it propogates.

We didn't evolve to recognize patterns, but the evolution of our DNA stumbled on pattern recognition (because of natural selection, over a long period of time, and in small steps) and, because of its benefits, it stayed.  Recognition also isn't the same thing as execution.  As a result of the path our DNA took, we are able to play the piano as well, but I fail to see how that can be separated from the pattern recognition.  Both are epiphenomena of the genetic evolution (DNA sequences) and both have no doubt gotten someone laid (perhaps in college for the former) and therefor contributed to their Genetic propogation.

So I am wondering if its just plain misleading to say that we Evolved to do anything, it hints of intellegent design (which I KNOW is not where any of us are thinking, but I can see it confusing people that know nothing at all about Evolution).  Or its just me that is confused, which is a concept I have gotten used to.

"Well, once again, my friend, we find that science is a two-headed beast. One head is nice, it gives us aspirin and other modern conveniences... But the other head of science is bad. Oh, beware the other head of science, Arthur. It bites." - The Tick

Offline crimson30

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 1
Re: Episode #146
« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2008, 09:30:27 PM »
No credit to the quote suggester? ;)

Also, I concur on the episode being better for lack of an interview.