"Peer Reviewed" Research

[ralis]

[ralis]

No it doesn't.

 

You can't use the evolutionist's conclusion as support for their conclusion. That's circular logic. The fact that they created a chart, doesn't make the chart necessarily true. The existence of the chart can't be used as evidence supporting the chart.

 

A graph is a summary of results i.e, data from research. That is not circular logic. Again you a really twisting the argument.

[Immortal4life]

I believe you are citing the wrong research. Gracile hominids are the key to human evolution. This is not a peer reviewed article and yet it provides some data to start from. In fact your graph points it out.

 

Again, what is your point?

 

No, the research cited in the Jerusalem Post is the same research cited in this thread. It rules out A. Aferensis and A. Africanus as human ancestors.

 

They are just extinct Apes.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

Hehehe.

 

I gotta' go feed my fish but I'll be back.

 

Sharks?

[Immortal4life]

A graph is a summary of results i.e, data from research.

 

Even if a graph is based on some sort of supposed data, that still does not mean you can argue for the authenticity of the graph based on the formation of the graph. The graph still can not be used as it's own validation.

[Marblehead]

No it doesn't.

 

You can't use the evolutionist's conclusion as support for their conclusion. That's circular logic. The fact that they created a chart, doesn't make the chart necessarily true. The existence of the chart can't be used as evidence supporting the chart.

 

Okay. The fish are eating. Did you know that both Goldfish and Koi both evolved from the common Carp? The Carp being indigenous to the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. They were first taken to China to be use for keeping the algae growth down in the rice patties. Some carp mutated and became multi-colored and multi-formed. When the Japanese invaded China they saw the Carp and took some back to Japan. The japanese made a hobby out of forcing mutations through selective breeding and produced the linages of Goldfish and Koi. Carp can still reproduce with Koi but neither can reproduce with Goldfish.

 

Anyhow, what was it you said?

 

Of Course it does!

 

But the chart can be used in supporting evolution. You presented it for viewing and consideration.

 

And as a side note, evolution needs no support because it is fact. Details are still a little flakey but that doesn't matter all that much. Yeah, I still wonder about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Maybe only one or two species of dinosaurs before they all died out.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Marblehead

[goldisheavy]

So what came first? The chicken or the egg - the body or the mind?

 

The mind is not something that's manufactured. The bodies come and go but not so the mind.

[Marblehead]

The mind is not something that's manufactured. The bodies come and go but not so the mind.

 

Well, I did get one response. No, I'm not going to say if I agree or disagree. Doesn't matter what I think.

[goldisheavy]

Well, I did get one response. No, I'm not going to say if I agree or disagree. Doesn't matter what I think.

 

You can say whatever you like as far as I am concerned, Marblehead. I'm not going to keep your mouth shut.

 

As far as I am concerned, evolution is all about the study of shapes. Which shapes related to what shapes. It's all interesting in the same sense jeopardy is interesting. It's basically useless information. Whether I come from a monkey or whether aliens put me here, it makes no difference whatsoever.

 

Mind is what's important. When it comes to mind, we know that all cognitions only have meaning within some context. No context, no meaning. The implication is that there is no such thing as "first cognition." Why not? Because in order for cognition to occur, there must be some context and that context is precisely made of other cognitions. So the chain of cognitions is an unbroken one by necessity.

 

If your reasoning faculties are strong, that is enough to see the truth. Otherwise, it's also possible to experience what I am saying directly by experiencing the dissolution of context and noticing what happens next. Getting this kind of experience is hit or miss and is very very hard. It's much easier and more practical to just sharpen up your reasoning and see the same thing through observation and logic. I am lucky in that I've done it both ways. I see the truth of the endless mind through both mystical experience and through sheer logic applied to common day to day experience.

 

The mind has no beginning and no end. The shapes that appear within the mind have a beginning and an end. The shapes have lineages. The mind does not (at least, not any kind of conventional lineage). Recognizing this is essential for spiritual progress, otherwise your most important and most powerful tool, the mind, is disengaged from reality.

 

If we come from apes, that's fine with me. If we don't come from apes, that's also fine with me. We certainly do not come from an Abrahamic creator God -- this can be dismissed through logic.

Edited May 22, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

Hi Gold,

 

I already knew where you stood regarding that concept. My understanding is a little bit different but, as you said regarding evolution, it doesn't really matter.

 

How we live this life we have been afforded is the most important thing.

 

I like to be mentally challenged therefore I enjoy getting into these discussions. It really doesn't matter if I am from another solar system or not. (I think it would matter to my mother were she still alive. I'm sure I caused her a lot of pain.)

 

I took the day off today and spent most of it here at the computer listening to my music and visiting the three forums I am a member of. All three of the forums are totally different regrading the subject content that is discussed.

 

This statement of yours: Because in order for cognition to occur, there must be some context and that context is precisely made of other cognitions. So the chain of cognitions is an unbroken one by necessity.

 

is beyond my grasp. What it tends toward in what I can grasp of it points to an eternal cognizance and that is too close to the concept of a god in my mind.

 

Yes, there are many who believe similarly as do do with this. I don't.

 

Hehehe. Looks like another one of those "I agree that we disagree."

[goldisheavy]

This statement of yours: Because in order for cognition to occur, there must be some context and that context is precisely made of other cognitions. So the chain of cognitions is an unbroken one by necessity.

 

is beyond my grasp. What it tends toward in what I can grasp of it points to an eternal cognizance and that is too close to the concept of a god in my mind.

 

It's not beyond your grasp. By this time I am pretty sure you have the required mental faculty to grasp what I am saying. Let's not play the "I am too dumb to get this" card please. I respect your choice on this matter though. So if you don't like the idea, that's fine. Just please don't say you're not mentally equipped to understand what I am saying, because that's not something I can believe.

 

Now, you know about the context, surely. When you reflect back on your context, how did it get to be the way it is? Right... Other cognitions. It points to an unbrokenness of mind. It does not point to God because God has a number of requirements over and above an unbroken mind. This is especially true of the Abrahamic God which is not a philosophically modest concept (and this makes it easy to disprove too). Of course it's also possible to have such a modest definition of God that it's essentially identically defined to the mindstream. That's fine too, but then, why should this modest kind of God bother you?

[steve]

I am not a creationist. I look at research from a spiritual perspective, not a creationist perspective.

 

This is peer reviewed research, showing that scientists who believed Lucy was an ancestor to humans, were incorrect.

1. I do not believe when you say you are not a creationist. I believe you are being disingenuous here. What is the difference between spiritual perspective and creationist perspective? Do you believe man and the earth were created by a Creator or do you not?

 

2. Yes, this is peer reviewed research and I value it and applaud it being published in a legitimate journal. It is documentation of the examination of a SINGLE specimen. From that you jump to the conclusion that it is completely conclusive and that there is no connection between Australopithecus and man. This is erroneous. That is not science. A single specimen is a single piece of evidence, not conclusive proof. Even if every specimen were similar there are alternative explanations to the fact that the mandibular anatomy of A-pithecus is closer to a gorilla than a chimp. Those alternative explanations also are not conclusive. It is an unresolved issue but there is certainly enough similarity for any reasonable investigator to consider the possibility of a relationship. If you want to quote peer-reviewed research, please play by the rules of such research. Do not denigrate the work of these scientists by misusing their data.

[ralis]

1. I do not believe when you say you are not a creationist. I believe you are being disingenuous here. What is the difference between spiritual perspective and creationist perspective? Do you believe man and the earth were created by a Creator or do you not?

 

2. Yes, this is peer reviewed research and I value it and applaud it being published in a legitimate journal. It is documentation of the examination of a SINGLE specimen. From that you jump to the conclusion that it is completely conclusive and that there is no connection between Australopithecus and man. This is erroneous. That is not science. A single specimen is a single piece of evidence, not conclusive proof. Even if every specimen were similar there are alternative explanations to the fact that the mandibular anatomy of A-pithecus is closer to a gorilla than a chimp. Those alternative explanations also are not conclusive. It is an unresolved issue but there is certainly enough similarity for any reasonable investigator to consider the possibility of a relationship. If you want to quote peer-reviewed research, please play by the rules of such research. Do not denigrate the work of these scientists by misusing their data.

 

 

Thanks for stating that so well! Much more succinctly than what I stated in earlier posts. I do believe he is a creationist.

[goldisheavy]

1. I do not believe when you say you are not a creationist. I believe you are being disingenuous here. What is the difference between Yes, this is peer reviewed research and I value it and applaud it being published in a legitimate journal. It is documentation of the examination of a SINGLE specimen. From that you jump to the conclusion that it is completely conclusive and that there is no connection between Australopithecus and man. This is erroneous. That is not science. A single specimen is a single piece of evidence, not conclusive proof.

 

Steve, does this work both ways? In other words:

 

1. Disputing Lucy is not sufficient to establish that there is a break in evolution.

 

2. Positing Lucy is not sufficient to establish that there is a continuity of evolution.

 

In other words, are we applying the same standard of rigor going both ways? Or are we kind of biased here? By the way, I completely believe in evolution (only partially thanks to the evolutionary biologists though).

Edited May 23, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Nanashi]

Some see Jesus as an authority-- they also think those who understand evolutionary theory see science as their authority, and thus a threat to the christian value system.

 

Science is a tool for understanding nature; what scares Creationists more is that Jesus is irrelevant in science. Nature isn't an authority, either-- but for believers, harmonious co-existence only happened in Eden, thus man must now dominate nature. Evolutionary theory competes with their domination theory.

[goldisheavy]

Some see Jesus as an authority-- they also think those who understand evolutionary theory see science as their authority, and thus a threat to the christian value system.

 

Science is a tool for understanding nature; what scares Creationists more is that Jesus is irrelevant in science. Nature isn't an authority, either-- but for believers, harmonious co-existence only happened in Eden, thus man must now dominate nature. Evolutionary theory competes with their domination theory.

 

Science is less dogmatic than creationism. But science is not entirely free of dogma. So while the creationists' fear of the scientific authority is mostly delusional, it's not 100% delusional. There is a small grain of truth to what they fear in the form of the scientific authority. After all, it's humans that form both systems of thought. So just how dissimilar can the scientific community and the creationist community be? Of course they are not the same, but nor is the dissimilarity extreme.

Edited May 23, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Nanashi]

GiH: Oh, I quite agree-- I fear a Fascist Technocratic culture is looming, Brave New World style.

[Immortal4life]

Some see Jesus as an authority-- they also think those who understand evolutionary theory see science as their authority, and thus a threat to the christian value system.

 

Science is a tool for understanding nature; what scares Creationists more is that Jesus is irrelevant in science. Nature isn't an authority, either-- but for believers, harmonious co-existence only happened in Eden, thus man must now dominate nature. Evolutionary theory competes with their domination theory.

 

Domination theory?

 

If Evolution is true than one of the main purposes of Human life is to dominate on other Humans, and to dominate Nature. The goal of life is to dominate, be an alpha human, use others for personal gain, pleasure, and gaining power. Survival of the strong, destruction of the weak.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Nanashi]

Domination theory?

 

If Evolution is true than one of the main purposes of Human life is to dominate on other Humans, and to dominate Nature. The goal of life is to dominate, be an alpha human, use others for personal gain, pleasure, and gaining power. Survival of the strong, destruction of the weak.

 

"Social Darwinism" was a propaganda tool of fascists, not an actual scientific theory.

[Immortal4life]

Regardless of the existence of a specific philosophy called "Social Darwinism", Darwinism itself always has social implications. Don't be naive.

[Nanashi]

Only if warped minds imply it. Funny you call me naïve.

 

Social Darwinism is basically "scientific racism". To apply racism to evoultionary theory is pure manipulation of the facts.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Nanashi

[Marblehead]

Now, you know about the context, surely. When you reflect back on your context, how did it get to be the way it is? Right... Other cognitions. It points to an unbrokenness of mind. It does not point to God because God has a number of requirements over and above an unbroken mind. This is especially true of the Abrahamic God which is not a philosophically modest concept (and this makes it easy to disprove too). Of course it's also possible to have such a modest definition of God that it's essentially identically defined to the mindstream. That's fine too, but then, why should this modest kind of God bother you?

 

You know that I am a materialist Gold. One can see it in my writings and I have stated as much one numerous occasions.

 

To the best of my knowledge cognizance requires a functioning brain. When I was born there was no cognzance - my brain was a blank slate. There was a beginning of the process of cognizance but I cannot remember back to the first instance. The best my memory can do is go back to the time shortly after I learned to walk.

 

Now, yes, after the first occurrence of cognizance there is a continuous flow of (awareness?) from then till now. But in my understanding when the body dies the brain will also die so that would be the end of all cognizance for this individual being. Cognizance may even end before the physical body has died. This has happened often.

 

I cannot speak to anything beyond this because I have no knowledge of any cognizance in existance other than as a result of a brain inside a body. Although I will suggest that there are other animals beside humans that are capable of cognizance.

 

To suggest that cognizance exists external to a living physical body is beyond acceptability for me. It suggests being withour bodies - gods, fairies, angels, etc. These, IMO, are all illusions of humanity.

[Marblehead]

Science is less dogmatic than creationism. But science is not entirely free of dogma. So while the creationists' fear of the scientific authority is mostly delusional, it's not 100% delusional. There is a small grain of truth to what they fear in the form of the scientific authority. After all, it's humans that form both systems of thought. So just how dissimilar can the scientific community and the creationist community be? Of course they are not the same, but nor is the dissimilarity extreme.

 

Funny. I have never accepted a scientific finding as a dogmatic truth. Even these truths from science are subject to change as knowledge and technique are advanced. To become static is to die. True, fixed balance is death.

 

Stay flexible!

[Marblehead]

Domination theory?

 

If Evolution is true than one of the main purposes of Human life is to dominate on other Humans, and to dominate Nature. The goal of life is to dominate, be an alpha human, use others for personal gain, pleasure, and gaining power. Survival of the strong, destruction of the weak.

 

I very much disagree with this. In my understanding it is the main purpose of humanity to learn to live within the bounds of nature, not control it. Yes, survival is an instinct in all animals. But there is no species other than man who destroys nature for the sole purpose of gaining more than is needed for survival.

 

Taoism teaches that we should know when we have enough. That would be enough for comfortable survival. To amass unneeded resources is to directly deny others of those resources and this simply equates to greed.

[steve]

Steve, does this work both ways? In other words:

 

1. Disputing Lucy is not sufficient to establish that there is a break in evolution.

 

2. Positing Lucy is not sufficient to establish that there is a continuity of evolution.

 

In other words, are we applying the same standard of rigor going both ways? Or are we kind of biased here? By the way, I completely believe in evolution (only partially thanks to the evolutionary biologists though).

It works both ways. A single specimen is a single piece of data that may support or not support a theory. The theory is much more valuable and powerful than any single fact (ie piece of evidence).