Neuroscientists find basis for morality in brain biology
posted at 1:02 pm on May 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m reminded of Rick Warren’s memorable “defense” of religion in his Newsweek debate with Sam Harris: “If death is the end, shoot, I’m not going to waste another minute being altruistic.” Spoken like a true humanitarian, Rick.
Looks like he’s wrong, and a good thing too.
“You gotta see this!” Jorge Moll had written. Moll and Jordan Grafman, neuroscientists at the National Institutes of Health, had been scanning the brains of volunteers as they were asked to think about a scenario involving either donating a sum of money to charity or keeping it for themselves…
The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable…
What the new research is showing is that morality has biological roots — such as the reward center in the brain that lit up in Grafman’s experiment — that have been around for a very long time.
The more researchers learn, the more it appears that the foundation of morality is empathy. Being able to recognize — even experience vicariously — what another creature is going through was an important leap in the evolution of social behavior. And it is only a short step from this awareness to many human notions of right and wrong, says Jean Decety, a neuroscientist at the University of Chicago…
Marc Hauser, another Harvard researcher, has used cleverly designed psychological experiments to study morality. He said his research has found that people all over the world process moral questions in the same way, suggesting that moral thinking is intrinsic to the human brain, rather than a product of culture. It may be useful to think about morality much like language, in that its basic features are hard-wired, Hauser said. Different cultures and religions build on that framework in much the way children in different cultures learn different languages using the same neural machinery.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
So what? It didn’t say any of the people in the study followed through with their altruistic brain pulse.
If they were adults, then that’s conditioning from every happy ending all-you-need-is-love song, movie, and TV show they’ve been exposed to in western pop culture for the past 80 years.
ScottMcC on May 28, 2007 at 1:09 PM
LOL interesting. Prediction: Atheists can say “See! moral behavior is biological” and Christians can say “See! proof that God made it that way since we are different than animals and this further disproves Darwin”
Bradky on May 28, 2007 at 1:09 PM
It’s not clear how different we are from the animals in this respect. Read the article.
Allahpundit on May 28, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Go figure, taking your mind off yourself not concentraiting on your own pain and fear is pleasurable.
I mean did people really need a study for this? They went to U.C. Berkley didn’t they?
Well then again, what were they thinking about giving the money to other’s for? Was is large amounts of cash they were thinking of, or was it stuffing singles?
On third thought was it every six seconds that they spot on the brain lit up? ‘Cause you know the saying. . .
- The Cat
MirCat on May 28, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I did read it. Just kidding about likely reactions. Not picking one side or the other.
Bradky on May 28, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Sounds like general pack behaviour. While morality may be hardwired in a general sense, it sure can be skewed to different ends.
Krydor on May 28, 2007 at 1:31 PM
The second I read the headline I knew it would be yet another case of a science article mixing unrelated story telling, based on evolutionary assumption… and I was right:
I don’t even have to read the article to be reasonable certain they don’t even attempt to back that claim up. I suspect there is nothing in the study suggesting this, outside of the fact that morality exists… and in a world where evolution is always assumed, anything we see is always evidence for it… even though it isn’t and that isn’t how science works. That’s how lazy assumptions work.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Hmmm, being altruistic because it feels good. Sounds awfully self-interested to me.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 28, 2007 at 1:39 PM
I’ve believed for years that all our ideas of Good and Evil… right and wrong… stem from a group based survival instinct.
Look at all the good behaviour…
telling the truth: leads to less conflict in the pack/village.
Charity: helping those in need, once again making the village better able to survive…
Bravery: Putting yourself at risk to help others in the village survive… making the instinctual choice to put strong members in hazard, to protect weaker members, so THEY can procreate…
And Evil???
Murder: less members of the village to procreate… less chance of survival…
Stealing: breakdown of social order, others stop charity, village less able to survive (although individual survival is enhanced)…
Telling Lies: Breaks down the possibility of cooperating…
Coveting thy neighbors wife: Breakdown of trust, leads to females possibly being abandoned, children not taken care of… less survival…
These guys are on to somthing… but its effect, not cause.
Romeo13 on May 28, 2007 at 1:43 PM
My prediction, this (and any other discovery or evidence) will not shake the faith of people that believe that all of the secrets of the universe were written in a book 2000 years ago by middle eastern tribes.
It is self evident that group altruism is a species survival chraacteristic. Look at all the things that Man has invented that require a group effort: Buildings, Irrigation, Mass Production. Ironically even religion may have been invented as a side effect of this impulse.
People that are dogmatic in their beliefs will discount and fear this study as they do others, becuae their dogmatism does not allow any challenges to their faith.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 28, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love multiculturalism.
Buck Turgidson on May 28, 2007 at 1:47 PM
JayHaw,
This study in no way challenges my faith. If anything, it backs it up even more. Put me on the side that says, “gee, it almost looks like a programmer put that there!”
As for the rat experiment, talk about jumping to assumptions. Maybe the rat just doesnt want to eat around someone getting fried. I doubt it has anything to do with morality.
Centurion68 on May 28, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Lol, that’s cute. You talk about dogma!? How about the fact that nothing here suggests that this “evolved”, and in fact all the hard-wired talk would suggest the opposite. Either way, there’s no evidence for moralities origin here. YOU are the one who’s dogma gets in your way. It’s really hilarious actually. You say this or any other “discovery” or “evidence” won’t shake someone’s faith… What, about morality being hard-wired in to our brain’s would shake someone’s faith? How does morality being hardwired in to a person’s brain contradict their beliefs?
Before you go mocking dogma and faith, I suggest you look in the mirror bud. Just because the word “evolution” is in the article, doesn’t mean there was actually evidence for it. This continues to be one of my beefs with science articles, when new studies (often massively contradicting evolution) that say nothing about how a trait or feature, etc. came to be, mention evolution, simply because it’s assumed. THAT IS FAITH. THAT IS DOGMA!!! Get it?
Further explained in comment at 1:37 PM
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Oh, you big cynic, you.
Allahpundit on May 28, 2007 at 1:54 PM
From the article
Wonderful….
Dash on May 28, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Dash,
In the wild, those that don’t follow pack morality and structure are often killed or at the very least cast out. It’s not so difficult when the basic idea is to not starve to death and procreate as much as possible.
Krydor on May 28, 2007 at 2:02 PM
If you want to you can analyze ROSIES brain Allah.
Let us know if you find anything
Her latest video from her site
Nuclear Wensday
William Amos on May 28, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Spoken like a logical thinker.
IMHO this is the biology of “The law of God is written on your hearts.”
Mojave Mark on May 28, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Totally off topic, apologies… but did anyone post the Alabama giant boar story here? I’m interested to hear the comments on it here =)
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070526/hog.shtml
Dash on May 28, 2007 at 2:19 PM
YOu keep missing the point, time after time, post after post, thread after thread.
I am not an evolutionist.
Evolution is not an ideology in competition with religion.
Science is not an ideology in competition with religion.
I do not “believe in” in evolution. It simply is the only argument for the origin of human life that is supported by evidence and does not require GOd,Zeus, Harry Potter or any other supernatural entity.
I am always open to new facts and new ideas that are properly documented and provable using independant, repeatable testing.
If these new facts contradict what I thought I knew, then my knowledge will evolve.
In the case of Theists like yourself, you either reject such evidence and discoveries out of hand (since they are not in the bible, how can they be true) or in your desperation to prove that your mass delusion is true you make tortuous statements like:
Your attempt to twist anything into evidence of god would be “cute” if it weren’t so desperate.
You are clearly a logical, thinking human being. You are clearly not stupid. Just let go of all that crap that religion has force fed you since birth and the simpleness of the truth becomes clear.
There is an incredible amount of knowledge available to you, remove the distorting lenses of your faith and there is no end to what you can learn.
In religous mythology, they say that knowledge is evil. Adam was cast out of the garden of eden for dairing to eat from the tree of knowledge.
The people that crafted religions know what they are doing. Knowledge and truth are the enemies of religion and other superstitions. The more knowledge you have, the less likely you will for for these Shamans and huscksters of religion.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 28, 2007 at 2:33 PM
As usual, people don’t understand the fact that they’re looking at a physical effect of a conscious act of will. This neuroscience proves nothing other than you will probably get a warm fuzzy feeling inside if you decide to do something good. Guess what? You don’t need a scientist to tell you that. Duh.
Somebody should try some experiments where people decide to do something good that costs them dearly. Maybe show them pictures of their family and then present a scenario where some great deed would have to be done that would result in their family being killed in the process. What if they decide to put the common good over their personal feelings? Or visa-versa? Somehow I don’t think either option will give someone feelings of eating/sex-like pleasure.
Not everything I do is somehow connected to my personal/group survival. That is just an absurd proposition no matter how you look at it.
Jared White on May 28, 2007 at 2:35 PM
It makes perfect sense that primitive tribes of individuals who exhibited a certain amount of altruistic behavior towards each other would become stronger (and thus more prolific) than tribes whose members were distrustful and did not assist each other. For example, tribes which did not place some prohibition on murder simply would not thrive because the members would constantly be fearing for their safety.
WisCon on May 28, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Actually, the evidence for unguided Darwinian evolution is virtually nil. Every single day we find yet another piece of evidence that supports Intelligent Design. In fact, we’re now discovering all kinds of things that were already predicted by ID years ago. It’s quite amazing.
You might want to look past the atheist creation myth of evolution and evaluate the true evidence with an open mind. Design is all around us and does require a Designer. We Christians like to call this Designer “God”, and this viewpoint of mind over matter requires no more faith than an atheist’s blind belief in matter over mind.
Jared White on May 28, 2007 at 2:41 PM
I would suspect altruism to be hard-wired — many mammals help each other. Still, I don’t see how that would help atheism which is supposed to be made on logically, and, logically, why act morally if you can get away with immorality since, whatever life you live, it all just disappears in the end?
There’s no logical reason to be good if evil is more advantageous. The reason there are so many moral atheists is because they are no more logical than the religious.
frankj on May 28, 2007 at 2:49 PM
*shrugs* Jayhaw, you just admitted you have faith in evolution. You said, “it’s the only idea that doesn’t require God” so gosh dang it, that is what you are perforced to believe in.
If we found a rock dated, say, 3 billion years ago with the words “I am made this” in Hebrew, you’d somehow argue with that, too. That’s the essence of faith in something. For you, you cannot stomach the idea of God or being held responsible for your actions, so you must argue against God. You have just as much faith in your religion (that God doesn’t exist) as I do in mine, and while you claim that all believers will never “see the truth” of atheism and evolution, the same could be said of you–you will twist any and all evidence that God does exist and claim otherwise, just to suit yourself.
You have a religion, just as much as I do.
Vanceone on May 28, 2007 at 2:54 PM
The economist will answer this based on rational choice/cost-benefit analysis, and they are inherently subjective since the individual chooses what it values more. When dealing with non-measurable values (compassion, patriotism, ect.) it becomes increasingly difficult to form an objective analysis and the laymen usually will just substitute his own values for that of the people they are measuring (ie. Mrs. Obama saying that people who vote for Republicans are voting against their self-interest, in this case, economic self-interest because she values materialism above all else.)
So, the vague phrase of “putting the public good ahead of the self” would not negate rational choice. And the experiment, in this case, shows that altruism is at least related to other biological and selfish urges.
To me, this isn’t a bad thing. I would be much more concerned if people were good, out of fear, because they thought there was a big surveillance camera in the sky watching them rather than being good for goodness sake.
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 2:55 PM
LOL! You should inform the biologists at Johns Hopkins, MIT, Harvard, and every other major university because they would probably be thrilled to be part of such a historic scientific revolution.
WisCon on May 28, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I think that our culture has evolved at a much faster pace than our biology. I am not an anthropologist, but in primitive socities which were likely very small and bound, I think that penalties for some forms of misconduct towards the group would be more severe than for a similar action in a modern society. My point is, behavior which has been considered evil all along might not produce the same level of personal gain at different points in time.
WisCon on May 28, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Only if you believe them to be enemies.
Daring to do so AFTER he was told by his creator NOT to – that was the evil part. The tree, BTW, placed there by God knowing that even having been given paradise, having been made in His image, His creations would not be satisfied to exist within boundaries imposed on him. Thus, temptation and the fall from grace was predestined by God. Which is sort of like telling your kid you’ll kick him out of the house if you catch him drinking, while putting your six packs eye level in the fridge next to the OJ in hopes you’ll soon be helping him pack his bags and send him out into the world. You can’t get that slice of the human condition from a brain biopsy.
shuzilla on May 28, 2007 at 3:11 PM
No! Don’t you see? The scientists are in on the conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud on themselves and the world. They’ve set up this elaborate scheme called “peer-review” to prevent the truth for getting out.
But don’t worry! Ken Ham and his new “museum” with animatronic dinosaurs will show the world that the Tyrannosaurus’ large cone-shape teeth were actually used not to eat meat, but to open COCONUTS!.
LET THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION BEGIN!!!
LOL
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 3:11 PM
For instance, did you realize that every bone in the human body actually comes inscribed with a microscopic VIN number, written in an archaic derivative of Hebrew? Also, a stone tablet recently recovered near Jerusalem carries an inscription loosely translating as “11. That deal about swallowing food down your primary airway? I was just joking around.”
Blacklake on May 28, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Does AhmedX’s altruism light go on as he straps on his bomb vest?
How about when he triggers it at the school bus stop?
The Ahmed’s just empathizing with his tribe.
Have you met Ahmed?
Stephen M on May 28, 2007 at 3:46 PM
So, you’re not an evolutionist… yet you’re willing to demand that the evidence supports it… even though it doesn’t… and insist that this is evidence for it… even though NOTHING SUGGESTS that this is evidence for it.
Again, I’m not the one who has the problem with religion, faith, and dogma here… YOU do. You keep talking about all this evidence, yet you aren’t showing any. Reread your own comments before you talk about other people’s faith.
You mock those that believe in the Bible:
Yet nothing here suggests that these hard-wired traits are evolved. NOTHING! Get it? Just because evolution is always assumed, doesn’t mean when a “scientist” wildly speculates (without a shred of evidence) at how morality “evolved”, he’s actually proved anything. YOU have the problem with faith, YOU have the problem with dogma. I’m not submitting a religion here, you are. I’m mocking your misplaced mockery.
You talk about the “religious”, I’m not even religious. You people don’t understand that there are people who believe in God and the Bible but aren’t “religious” and aren’t being told what to think “just because” that’s what the church says. You on the other hand let your assumptions force your opinions about people and about what this study says. Again, read your own first comment. It suggests that this should shake anyone’s faith, when there’s nothing here that should. It’s YOUR issue with faith and dogma forcing you to see something that isn’t there, not the Christian’s.
Seriously, it’s beyond frustrating how brainwashed you people are, especially when you completely ignore what you’re doing and accuse me (who’s not even submitting a specific case for or against something) of doing what YOU are in fact doing.
I just find it funny that you see evolution where there isn’t evidence for it, mock others as if this lack of evolution should shake the faith of those that don’t believe in evolution, then get pissed and insist you aren’t an evolutionist. Wow. For someone not an evolutionist, you sure want to defend a lack of evidence as evidence, in the same way as they do.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 3:47 PM
I’m being called brainwashed by someone that lets a book written by an ancient tribe of sheepherders decide his moral outlook.
Irony?
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 28, 2007 at 4:02 PM
You’re being called brainwashed because, while claiming not to be an evolutionist, you’re demanding that this is evidence for evolution, even though it’s not. This happens constantly, I’ve literally seen thousands of articles where something complex is discovered and a scientists says “it must have evolved differently than we’d thought”. There wasn’t evidence for evolution, rather there was a lack of it. But people like you will read it as if there was something discovered about how a particular thing evolved. Because, YES, YOU are brainwashed. And if you had any point here, you’d defend yourself from what I’m saying.
I made the very simple point in my very first response to you…. instead of explaining how I was wrong, you jumped up and down and pointed fingers at me. At least you took a little time to do it, but the entire post lacked substance. now you’re just throwing out one sentence, doing the same thing… yet still refusing to explain how I’m wrong about the problem YOU are having with faith and dogma, while accusing others of having it.
Again, you’re proving my point. I’m not here as a representative of a book, a religion, or of God. I’m simply pointing out how idiotic it is to call something that doesn’t speak to moralities origins, evidence for evolution, and suggest that it should shake anyone’s faith. I’m NOT putting forth a particular opinion, whether you know what I think or not, on where morality comes from. I’m pointing out how stupid it was to say what you said.
If you want to defend what you said, and explain how it’s not stupid… by all means, do so. But can you stop with all the “book written 2000 years ago by sheeherders” crap that you’re using to personally attack me because you simply can’t argue against me point, which has nothing to do with what I may or may not believe (by the way, the old testament was written much earlier, so shut up there too).
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 4:10 PM
I have to come to the defense of Rightwinged just this once.
He doesn’t let “a book written by an ancient tribe of sheepherders decide his moral outlook.” He merely thinks that reiterating his idolatrous loyalty to a book will make him appear to be a holy and moral person.
By the way, how does anybody have “faith in the Bible?” When people say that, I think it means that they who say it assume it is a history book.
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Where did I do this?
My point was that if it was hard wired, it went against your hypothesis (in other threads) that all morality comes from Christianity.
That was my point.
However, there are good evolutionary reasons for this kind of thing to evolve, so the theory does seem credible too me. I will look into it more. You just read your Bible.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 28, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Rightwinged,
That’s foolish. You aren’t making an argument against evolution, you are merely saying that what we know about evolution now might not be true.
If you want to falsify evolution, show me that dinosaurs and man lived together. Or a modern rabbit in the pre-Cambrian. Don’t point to new discoveries that overturn conventional wisdom on a particular subject and then leap to a general conclusion that evolution is a grand conspiracy.
A rule of logic: You can’t draw a conclusion that is more general than your evidence.
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Considering that the bestselling book written by two Jew-cum-atheists on how a moral and altruistic life should really be lived has a death toll of 20 million Russians, 65 million Chinese, 1 million Vietnamese, 2 million North Koreas, 2 million Cambodians, 1 million Eastern Europeans, 1.7 million Africans, 1.5 million in Afghans, and a hundred thousand Central and South Americans, we’re looking at historical evidence that shows putting the sheep herder book’s silly little stories into practice is overall better for the human race.
ScottMcC on May 28, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Emailed AP and figured I’d post it here with an addendum:
The theory that morality is rooted in pains and pleasures and in empathy with other people is a pretty old theory. It goes at least as far back as A Treatise of Human Nature, books 2-3, by David Hume (1711-1776). Arguably it has roots in Hobbes (1588-1679) and the Greek philosopher Protagoras (490-420BC) who in Plato’s dialogue Protagoras (320d-322d) anticipates the Hobbesian thesis about the state of nature.
It is hard to see how the experiments that the article cites gets much further philosophically. The article uses the word ‘altruism’ as if its content is a given. But the debate is about what ordering of society and what pains and pleasures are appropriate. Should we always empathize with what gives pain or pleasure to another person? It’s pretty difficult to maintain consistently that each individual has ‘absolute moral authority’. Should a person who encounters St. Sheehan concede her claims of just because empathy requires it? Or likewise with Michelle Malkin or Ace? Unless you think every person would feel the same pains and pleasures (if not for the corrupting influence of culture) then empathy cannot distinguish which moralities are rationally viable.
And that’s the real debate: Is it inherently corrupting for someone to educate our passions and our pains and pleasures (as Hume and likeminded empiricists think) or do our passions etc. need education for us to achieve excellence? The WP article doesn’t settle that dispute.
Allah’s 12/2006 post about the littlest moonbat was entertaining in a geeky way for me just because at 35sec it pits moral empathy vs moral law. The people who coached the girl in that video didn’t need to study contemporary cognitive/neuroscience to land on empathy as key.
Add.: The debate is not just between secularists and the religious lil’ moonbat says. A secular Aristotelian could argue that empathy is not enough but that humans need to have our passions educated in order for us to achieve excellence and for society to flourish. So a non-religious person can reject Rick Warren’s quip while not being stuck with the moralizing of the littlest moonbat’s puppeteer or of maureen dowd.
jaychandra on May 28, 2007 at 4:38 PM
As I said in MANY threads, all Theist arguments will Generate into one of 2 arguments:
1) The Bible
2) Stalin, Hitler & Mao.
Once again, they have pulled out number two. Second time in three days.
Godwin Rule. I win the debate. Debate over.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 28, 2007 at 4:57 PM
However, I do agree that The Communist Manifesto is a poisonous book. No doubt about that.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 28, 2007 at 4:59 PM
The reward for being decent is in not having anxiety of about: A) not being treated decently, yourself, later; B) NOT having to worry about your “selfish” behavior being found out, and punished; and C) a biochemical flush of pleasure-sensations rising from a sense of power (over your cruder impulses, which are just as endorphin-rewarding, in a more primitive id way, as more compassionate acts).
It’s hardly as simple as the mere wiring to choose to do one thing over another.
Each choice, good or ill, branches outward into scores of possible futures, and the obvious short-term delight feelings may pale in comparison with a vision of long-term contentment (less ecstatic, but more “satisfying”, upon consideration).
As any swallow’s nest proves, nurturing, self-sacrifice and tenderness are built into the higher animals. (Even mother crocs carry their little hatchlings with extraordinary care… cradled in their jagged mouths… to the water from their muddy nests.)
“Morality” was born with a parent’s love.
Everything is an offshoot of this primal nobility.
profitsbeard on May 28, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Where do you do this? Do I really need to paste your original comment again?
Again, your entire comment is mocking Christians for their dogmatism and faith, and implying that there is something here that should (if not for dogma) shake their faith. You act as if there is something here that supports evolution, and thus contradicts what the faithful believe.
I repeatedly beg you to show me what in there is evidence or even cause for concern for Christians, and you refused to (and continue to refuse to) and continue to say stupid things like “read your Bible” and attack me as reading a “2,000 year old book (a stupid comment in itself), when AGAIN YOU IDIOT, I’M NOT PUTTING FORTH A POSITION, YOU ARE. Whether I am a Christian or not (and again, you clearly don’t understand what that even means), is completely irrelevant. I simply pointed out that nothing here suggests evolution, though the brainwashing forced you to think it did:
There was on discovery or evidence to shake faith, so why should it genius!!!??? WAKE UP! Again, you’re having the problem with dogma and faith, not anyone else. You’re assuming evolution, when there wasn’t evidence to support it, and pretending that it contradicts something that it doesn’t. (Which is why you haven’t come up with it, and instead just made smart ass personal comments to me)
Now, are ya keeping up this time Jayhaw? Here’s where you really get wild this time:
I challenge you to find where I EVER said that morality comes from Christianity. I would argue it comes from God, but that’s entirely different. And nothing in this article suggests it didn’t.
Again, please stick to something you know about. First of all, you keep talking about a 2,000 year old book, when in fact we’re talking about books written much earlier. Then you can’t differentiate between something given by God, and something forced by the Christian faith.
And then there’s this…
Let’s get the simple stuff out of the way. Again, you say “read your Bible” as a way to personally attack me, even though whether I read the Bible or not is completely irrelevant to the point about the fact that you are the one here with religious views, as seen in your first comment. Secondly, this implies that YOU (the non-Christian) are the one who wants to look in to it, while a Christian would bury their nose in a Bible… quite the contrary. I could list the evidence, but I think the 17 million dollar, privately funded Creation Museum is proof enough that our side is fully engaged and wants this debate.
As for there being “good evolutionary reasons” for this to evolve. SO WHAT! Again, you are just beyond brainwashed because you don’t realize how truly retarded that sounds. Even if it were true, that this could have and would have evolved by the evolutionary process, THAT STILL ISN’T EVIDENCE THAT IT DID! Get it? That’s assuming evolution, looking at something, and because you assume evolution, seeing it as the source. Even though no actual evidence supported it. YOU ARE THE RELIGIOUS ONE IN THIS THREAD, GUY. WAKE UP. I could go on and on about just how idiotic that last sentence of yours was, but I feel that you’re having trouble grasping this as it is so I won’t go on about the circular reasoning you’re using, etc. (lol, “so the theory seems credible”).
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 5:10 PM
No, you’re being foolish because you’re inventing what you think I’m trying to say.
My only point, as I’ve repeated many times, is that lack of evidence for evolution, is not evidence for evolution… no matter how much you guys think it is.
It’s not about falsifying evolution (an impossibility, because it’s assumed no matter what. No matter the contradictory evidence, they alter the evolution story to fit the new evidence, even though the evidence didn’t lead them to alter it… their need for the evidence to fit did).
Here’s a very simple and easy to understand, but not mind blowing example of what I’m talking about (though keep in mind this happens daily)
http://www.livescience.com/animals/070319_gliding_lizard.html
The article is about an astonishing find – a small ancient gliding lizard. There is nothing about the find that speaks to its evolution. But the faithful darwinists throw this in there at the end, as they seem to be required to do:
Really… I didn’t “see evolution” making anything in your finding. I saw something interesting, and that was the end. Then evolution was assumed, and someone made an ass of them self by inserting evolution where it didn’t belong.
Again, this is a very minor, but easy enough to understand example of what I’m talking about.
Please don’t assume what I’m saying, based on your own biases. Saying this just makes you look stupid:
Gotta love those straw men.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I do agree that my post mocks your dogmatism, but where did I say that this was proof of evolution? Nowhere in my original post did I even use the word evolution.
In your mind there are two competing ideologies, Christianity and Darwinism. So that is how you frame things. I don’t worship Darwin the way Christians worship Jesus and Mary and God.
My point, once again, was, and I quote myself:
I am not an “Evolutionist” or “Darwinist”, I just do not believe that a God created the earth anymore than I believe Athena sprang from Zeus’s head.
A lack of belief in fiction is not a religion.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 28, 2007 at 5:23 PM
So what does this study say about head hunters and cannibals?
Rose on May 28, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Rightwinged,
It’s not that it can’t be falsified, it’s that it has never been falsified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Show me a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian. Or that humans and dinos lived together, and you will have blown evolution out of the water.
Seriously Rightwinged, you really do not have the first clue about the Theory of Evolution.
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 5:37 PM
I’m genuinely curious here. JayHaw, what happens if you are wrong? Let’s say that you meet God at some point. What are you going to say? “I didn’t believe because you sent me no proof?” And God can say, “well, I gave all these pointers, and all these people to let you know.”
Seriously, what if you are wrong? I just can’t fathom wagering eternity on a stubborn refusal and demands to see proof that fits what you eternally redefine so nothing could ever meet it. Seriously, you ARE religious in your absolute refusal to give any creedence to any sort of evidence that disputes the atheistic pov of evolution. If you were properly intellectually honest, you would be searching for yourself, not sticking your head in the sand and saying, “Nah, nah, I’m right, you must have God come down and carve his name in my arm before I’ll believe.”
Vanceone on May 28, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Bert, what happens if we DID find such a fossil? Wouldn’t you dismiss it as an anomoly, or contaminated fossil? Because rabbits can’t exist in the pre-cambian. So there must be some mistake.
What if we found lots of rabbits in the pre-cambian? Then what? Well, they’d say, “Gee, rabbits evolved much earlier than we thought! How did it happen? What was it’s precursor? And what a coincidence that this trilobite evolved so quickly!”
There’s no way to falsify evolution to such an extent that it would be believed by you. Plus, I don’t know that many people have a problem with evolution, per se–it’s the idea that evolution was not directed, just random, and thus there’s no need for a God. Could God have mutated that gene? Sure–it’s much more likely, since His mutation would, you know, be beneficial, unlike random mutations.
Vanceone on May 28, 2007 at 5:43 PM
You can keep saying you’re not an evolutionist all day long, but you keep trying to defend their position. But whether you call yourself that or not, won’t hide the fact that you can’t defend your original comment which implied that the “faithful” should be shaken over this. If that isn’t because you feel that this study implies evolution, then what does your comment mean? Again, you’re busted. You’re trying to spin out of your original comment and refusing to own up to it because you know it makes you look like an idiot and the truly religious one around here. You can’t deny that your comment about how it won’t shake people’s faith, implies that it somehow should. Knowing that this is what you’re saying, the implication (from you) is that this study is evidence for evolution… because if that’s not what you think, then there is nothing to “shake” anyone’s faith in the first place.
I’ll put it to you simply, because you clearly don’t get it (actually you clearly get it, but you’re being dishonest and playing dumb and diverting as far away from your original comment as possible… pretty standard when you can’t defend yourself). Here it is: What is it that would shake people’s faith here?
(Tip: Please don’t try that weird move you did a few comments ago, where you LIED and said that I argue that Christianity is the origin of morality. Or I’ll just have to bust you on that lie again. Of course I half expect you to do this, because you’re in that spiral right now of tossing out so much diversionary sh**, just so long as you don’t have to explain your original comments because you’ve since contradicted them)
So again, you’re putting words in my mouth. AGAIN, PLEASE STFU ABOUT CHRISTIANS SINCE YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT A FU**ING CLUE WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. Sorry everyone about the caps, but this clown is beyond obnoxious. First you lie when talking about the “2,000 year old book”, because you’re so uninformed. Now you’re talking about worshiping Mary, something even Catholics don’t do. Non-Catholic Christians don’t like how Mary is held up in the Catholic church, but you’re implying Christians all worship her, which they don’t, not even Catholics (who you won’t find me defending often).
Guy, quoting yourself lying, doesn’t make you right. You already said that, and I challenged you to support it…. but instead you’ll just repeat it. Are you a 5 year old on the other end of this computer? Seriously?
And to go with your starting point… your post may attempt to mock my dogmatism… the problem is, I haven’t submitted any… YOU HAVE. I haven’t said anything, other than that the stupid assumed evolution that you and your breed traffic in makes your opening comment and ones like it look ridiculous.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Vanceone,
Like I said, it would blow evolution out of the water!!!
What? I gave you the test: Find rabbits (or any modern animal) in the pre-Cambrian. You don’t need a lot of them. Just one.
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 5:50 PM
I don’t know you bert169, so don’t accuse me of accusing you of being a liberal (as you people tend to do, when I do what I’m about to do), but you’ve just executed a liberal tactic brilliantly.
I said something, you built a straw man to respond to. I responded by pointing out your straw man, and explaining (in detail, as if for a child because it was necessary for you to not leave you any escapes) exactly what I had been trying to say, and just to be thorough I still did respond to your straw man (even though I was essentially defending something I hadn’t said in the first place).
And you, in classic liberal fashion, masterfully turned that in to a debate about falsifying evolution. Bravo. Diversion at its best folks, you won’t see it done any better than that. Watch his form as he ignores the fact that I completely busted him for his straw man in a very detailed response. See him pretend like that never happened, while quoting a single comment, unrelated to the main point.
Jayhaw is in the process of doing this, but it’s much messier… Bert did it very quickly and cleanly. Suddenly we’re off on another topic, instead of ridiculing him for his idiotic straw man building which offered nothing to the discussion when he first came in and invented what I was saying so he’d have something to complain about.
And what’s funniest is the fact that his comment isn’t contradicting what he quoted me as saying:
It wouldn’t matter what was found, the evolutionists would take the new evidence and simply adjust the theory. It doesn’t matter how devastating it is, when assumed evolution is the God.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 5:52 PM
What’s funny is that the “evolved earlier than we thought” line comes out constantly.
I know you’re talking to Vanceone, and it’s all off on your brilliantly orchestrated diversion, but I just find it funny that we have to find a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian. Nothing else will do, just what you demand.
Anyway, as we said, they’ll simply re-write the story, so it doesn’t matter what is found.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Okay rightwinged, could you please just tell me what you think “evolutionists” think?
I’ll start you off: Is it true that “Evolutionists” think that man evolved from chimpanzees?”
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 5:58 PM
It depends on who is right:
1) Christians
2) Budhists
3) Muslims
4) Jews
5) Pagans
6) etc…
Should I just hedge my bet with an insincere belief in Christianity, or should I feign an insincere belief in every religion ever invented by man?
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 28, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Sounds like another diversion to me bert, I’m not biting.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Rightwinged,
Yeah, it’s all a diversion. LOL
BTW, it doesn’t have to be a rabbit, as I made clear when I wrote “or any modern animal”:
It can also be the the Jurassic, Triassic, Cretaceous, ect…
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I think that’s the heart of it, and the way I read it, too. Forget about the empathy thing — that’s just gloss they threw in; altruism can be said to require empathy, big deal. There’s no need to take it further than that.
I look at it this way based on a book about the Chinese I read a while ago. There was an interesting line in it, that the Chinese have roughly the same amount of friendship and loyalty as the Americans, but it’s distributed differently: Chinese dedicate their loyalty to their family, less so their friends outside the family, whereas Americans might well do the reverse.
It may well be that human capacity for altruistic “joy” may differ, but I would say that most of us have about the same altruistic capacity; it’s just that we distribute it differently, in large part, I believe, to our sense of right and wrong. And what determines that? The culture we absorb growing up.
I’d say that there’s a lot of empirical evidence for it.
Aardvark on May 28, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Here’s more on the subject: Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature by Larry Arnhart. I read some manuscripts by Larry Arnhart a few years ago. They were quite interesting, and I’m sure his books are even better.
Kralizec on May 28, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Should I just hedge my bet with an insincere belief in Christianity, or should I feign an insincere belief in every religion ever invented by man?
JayHaw Phrenzie
Isn’t Pascal’s Wager grand? It all hinges on the notion that should there be an afterlife, and you meet God face to face that he will have no clue you were just pretending.
Krydor on May 28, 2007 at 6:41 PM
I’m not sure what’s funny, because this is all a diversion. I stated a complaint about discoveries that show nothing about evolution (and often contradict the original story) being reported with the evolution being thrown back in to articles simply because it’s assumed, not because the evidence suggested anything one way or the other about evolution. You attacked me for trying to falsify evolution, which had nothing to do with what I said, though I bit your diversion a bit, explaining how one can never falsify evolution because the theory itself is the one thing that constantly evolves. That was irrelevant to the point, because your whole argument was of the straw man variety, because my point about assumed evolution dogma creeping in to science articles had nothing to do with proving or disproving evolution.
So to be clear, YES this is all a diversion, and you’re a weakling who can’t just admit your original straw man argument, or at least that you were wrong in assuming what I was trying to say because your own biases forced you to read what I never said.
But once again, I will bite a little on your diversion, because you are a master of it. I’ll keep it simple for the time being… this came out just this week:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070520/ap_on_re_au_an/indonesia_living_fossil_1
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 6:41 PM
JayHaw didn’t make it clear, but he was responding to someone else’s comment there, not mine, but let me agree with both of you on this one thing… I don’t believe in Christianity as an insurance policy, which is why I have an interest in this topics. JayHaw keeps trying to mock (because he has no argument and can’t even attempt to defend his own comments) me as some religious nut who won’t look outside the Bible, when that couldn’t be less true. I don’t like that many Christians do act this way, but the fact that I’m even here discussing this shoots JayHaw’s misplaced mocking down. If I were to be like that, I’d have left this thread with a “Jesus loves you” long ago, and just called it a day.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Darwin Loves You!
Bye!
J/K. :p
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 28, 2007 at 6:47 PM
That’s all good and fun JayHaw, but how about responding to this:
Why have you not acknowledge that you’re lying or don’t know what you’re talking about when you say “a 2,000 year old book”.
Why have you not acknowledged that you LIED when saying that I’ve said said morality comes from the Christian religion?
Why have you not acknowledged the countless lies or at least misunderstandings you’ve now been busted on in this thread alone?
But most importantly, back to the original point, and getting away from all of your diversions…
Once more, here’s what you started with:
After much diverting, failed straw man attempts, personal attacks based on lack of knowledge and stupid assumptions, you attempted to defend yourself by saying that you weren’t implying that this study was evidence for evolution.
I am begging you to then tell me what it is evidence for, that should shake anyone’s faith? You imply that something about this study should be something that would shake one’s faith, so if it’s not evidence for evolution that you’re trying to say is causing the earthquake, what is it?
And don’t act like I haven’t asked you this repeatedly. I have, and the fact that you’ve failed to answer (even though you’ve still been commenting) speaks volumes.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Rightwinged,
So you’re worried about scientists assuming that evolution happened, but never then bother to ask the next logical question: Why do they assume it happened?
Do you really think that scientists make assumptions on a whim?
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 7:17 PM
OK, I figured out why this debate has degenerated.
I tend to view all of these religion related threads as one giant ongoing debate and sometimes I roll from one into the next still continuing the argument from a previous thread.
The last “hot and heavy” debate I got onto about this was in this thread:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/25/nc-judge-witnesses-may-swear-oath-on-religious-text-of-their-choice/
And the discussion was about morality and the alleged biblical origins of morality. I just reread that thread and determined that you did not particpate in it.
I incorrectly referred to you personally as a general you to the other side of the debate and this led to most of the confusion.
Believe it or not, the entire point I was trying to make was simply in reference to morality being hardwired versus coming from the bible.
I concede, that you, Rightwinged, did not make this claim and I think that our discussion in this thread degenerated starting from that confusion of mine.
I accept the explanations of evolutionary biology as being the most likely, although very unfinished, explanation of the origin of life. This does not make me an evolutionist, as I do not in any way worship evolution or science. But, I was not referring to that in my original post.
That being said, I do think that this study is absolutely consistent with current human evolutionary theory as I understand it. However, this study does in no way constitute either proof nor disproof of evolution. I do concede that.
Please accept my apology, as I did not lie, but, as I said above, was mistaken.
I do not concede anything other than the fact that you did not say that morality was based on the bible.
Cheers!
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 28, 2007 at 7:27 PM
At least I got you back on the point of what I said (and away from the straw man arguments), but that’s still irrelevant. They can assume it all they want, but saying something “evolved differently” in a SCIENCE article, assumes it evolved, which is very unscientific, when the evidence either suggested nothing about evolution (up or down) and sometimes findings that are the basis for the write-up are only that something DIDN’T evolve the way previously assumed. The reason it didn’t fit assumptions, is because evolution storytelling was used to make the assumption in the first place. It’s UNSCIENTIFIC to take evidence that either contradicts evolutionary assumptions or says nothing about how something might have evolved all together, and state as fact that it still evolved, and no matter how far removed from evolution a finding or discovery might be, it’s almost as if they are required to put in the obligatory line containing the e-word.
Did you see my example about the gliding lizard? That was a very simple example, and not that big of a deal when compared with the constant flow of much worse. But do you get the point about evolution storytelling creeping in where it doesn’t belong. Why can’t the evidence just be what it is, without that obligatory evolution line, derived strictly on assumption. And you may be misunderstanding something, we’re not talking about “assuming” based on how one thing may have evolved, what we’re talking about here is the overall assumption that Darwinian evolution is true and not to be questioned. There is such a religious belief that “scientists” always feel the need to pay homage to Darwin (where evolution isn’t seen), more often than Christians thank and ask things of Jesus.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 7:30 PM
I’ll accept your apology on that point JayHaw, but point out that you could have cleared that one bit up a LONG time ago, or you could have just never said something like that in the first place. I don’t care enough to go read what others said that caused you to bring it up, as it wasn’t me and I’m not going to defend them, but having not read what they said, I’m not conceding that anyone said morals “come from” the Bible.
But I have to point out, that you’re still mixing things up. First you accused me of saying they came from Christianity, now you’re apologizing for saying they came from the Bible. The Bible and Christianity are not the same thing. But further, as stated, I might argue that morality is given to us by God, which is COMPLETELY different than coming from a book or a religion or a church, whether it is the God that is related to them or not.
As for the hardwired thing… you’re leading back to your original comment, or more specifically, my problem with it. I would argue that the fact that it is hardwired, is more of an evidence for design, rather than evolution. Hardwired morality is a lot different than microevolution like variation in size, etc. But either way, hardwired morality, whether you see it as evidence for a designer or not, it is certainly not evidence for evolution… unless you’re already assuming evolution. Do you get that? It’s not evidence for anything. It just is what it is. As my side always asks, why can’t the evidence just speak for itself, without evolutionary storytelling? Even if you’re assuming evolution beforehand, the fact that a trait exists, isn’t evidence that it evolves. It’s simply evidence that the trait exists, and that’s the end of it.
So back to your original comment, I’ll repeat what I keep asking (following another repaste of your comment)
Do I need to ask it another way? I think I’ve probably worded it a dozen different ways by now, but here goes: If it’s not evidence for evolution in this study (which again isn’t there) that you’re implying should shake ones faith, what exactly is it about evidence and discoveries that would shake one’s faith?
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Rightwinged,
All experiments have assumptions. Ever hear of “all things remaining equal” in economics? So your assertion about having assumptions being “Unscientific” is demonstrably false.
You also seem to be confusing previous conclusions with assumptions. Assumptions are general (Life evolved); Conclusions are more specific (this particular animal evolved in this way).
So once again Rightwinged, if an experiment overturns a previous conclusion, it does not overturn the assumption.
You want to attack Evolution. My question is: Do you understand it?
That is why I asked you: Do scientists believe man is descended from chimpanzees?
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 7:49 PM
It provides evidence that morals are not taken from any religion.
Therefore, it shakes one’s faith in the Bible as a moral compass.
My point was that I doubt if anyone on your side of the debate would aknowledge that. So far, I am right.
The only thing that I conceded is that you personally did not make this argument. It has been made by your side of the debate though.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/25/nc-judge-witnesses-may-swear-oath-on-religious-text-of-their-choice/
As I aknowledged, it wasn’t you that said this, however my point was: I doubt that this study will shake MojaveMark’s and many other Christians mistaken belief that
I have already answered this question, so I am jumping out of this loop at this point unless you have a new point to bring out.
Darwin Loves You!
Toodles!
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 28, 2007 at 7:56 PM
I’m not going to repeat myself because you clearly don’t understand what I’m saying. It IS unscientific, to report that something evolved differently than you thought, when a finding either shows nothing about evolution or simply proves that what you thought about how something evolved is not possible. Assumed evolutoin gets in the way of unbiased study, which is why when they discovered soft tissue in (supposedly 70 million year old) T-Rex bones, they then found it in a few other bones and said that this perhaps wasn’t uncommon, but because soft tissue was believed to only be able to survive for a few thousand years, when lucky, there was no reason to look for it in dinosaur bones, so they never did look for it. That too is a minor example, but it is one of many where evolution based assumptions held science back. Also, beyond that, the scientists never considered the evidence at face value… “we don’t believe soft tissue could survive more than a couple thousand years, maybe this isn’t millions of years old”, instead they concluded that somehow the soft tissue must be able to survive for millions of years.
Again, all I ask is that the evidence speak for itself, without storytelling. Evolutionists have a problem with this, and I can’t figure out why. They are angry and hold conferences and write papers expressing their outrage over the lack of acceptance of their story. Why do they care what other people think? It’s not like we have some sort of theocracy or like we control the media. Quite the opposite is true. So what are they concerned about and why must they tell stories, instead of just allowing evidence to speak for itself?
So, you’re “jumping out”? After all that dancing and lying, finally admitting to one ridiculous assumption about me, yet still ignoring the point, while at least now pretending to respond to it, instead of diverting all over the place like you did all day long.
“Moral compass” is entirely different than “morality”… Do you not get that? I wouldn’t even have worded it how Mojave Mark did (”Moral progress”), but it still has nothing to do with the belief that God created us, morality and all. Mojave isn’t saying got created us without morals and that the Bible gave them to us, and you know it.
So again, you’re busted. Just admit your evolution based assumptions that clouded your thinking from the get go and I’ll leave you alone. You took a LONG trip to get to where you’re actually responding to my originally problem with your very first comment. Now you’ve tried to spin, but it’s still not working.
So one more time, what is the “evidence” or “discovery” here that should be shaking someone’s faith? Again, even if you were to assume evolution true, nothing about hardwired morality suggests it was evolved. I would argue, based on my own bias, that it suggests intelligent design… But if we’re going to be completely open, it doesn’t conclude anything either way, but it certainly does NOT suggest evolution, it doesn’t say anything one way or the other on that.
Dance some more.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 9:12 PM
It would appear from reading these posts that rightwinged has the best understanding of evolution and its fallacious way of presenting “evidence”. The evolutionist starts with an assumption and tries to make everything fit that assumption.
Rose on May 28, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Rightwinged,
I understand you perfectly well. You simply repeat the same logical fallacy over and over and over and over again. You cannot draw a conclusion that is more general than your evidence!!!!!
That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Tell me, how does finding that something evolved differently than previously thought overturn (or atleast, call into question) the assumption that a thing evolved at all? You essentially just admitted that the assumption was correct because a thing can’t evolve differently if it didn’t evolve at all.
You’re talking in circles, Rightwinged. LOL
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 9:54 PM
LOL @ yourself, because you’re the one repeating and talking in circles because you lack the reading comprehension necessary here. Specifically:
For starters, find a place I ever claimed this? YOU are the one who keeps saying, that what I’m saying, is done in an attempt to call in to question or overturn or falsify evolution. YOU not ME, keep looking at it from that angle.
And the “findings” aren’t that something evolved differently, they are simply findings that something COULDN’T HAVE EVOLVED the way they assumed, based on the current evolution story. The previous assumption WASN’T based on evidence, but simply based on assumed evolution. So when evidence shows that something couldn’t have evolved that way, the evidence should speak for itself. Why are you evolutionists so afraid of just letting evidence say what it does, without storytelling? Sometimes the “findings” aren’t even that something couldn’t have evolved the way previously assumed, sometimes they are completely unrelated to its origins in the first place. So evolution has no place in reporting on it, it’s simply storytelling, NOT SCIENCE. Again, see the little ancient gliding lizard story above. It is minor, and simple, but a drop in the bucket. It’s of the second variety – an finding that doesn’t relate at all to origins, but obligatory evolution language is inserted. It’s not as bad as when something shatters previously held assumptions about how something evolved (again, assumptions not made on evidence, but based entirely on how something must fit in to the already written story).
So before YOU go back and repeat YOURSELF. It’s not about overturning/falsifying/calling in to question evolution when seeing evidence that shows something evolved differently, because we’re talking about evidence that shows nothing of the sort. The ASSUMPTION is that it evolved differently, simply because it didn’t evolve the way previously assumed, which was entirely based on ASSUMED EVOLUTION, and not on evidence.
Do you not get this? I repeated it in so many different ways in the previous post – Why can’t we just report the facts and leave the baseless storytelling out of it? Did the obligatory evolution line in that small ancient gliding lizard story contribute anything to science or the finding?
(And don’t think it went unnoticed that you COMPLETELY ignored the point about science being held back evolutionary assumptions, even in the simple case of not finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones because they never looked for it, on the assumption it couldn’t survive “millions of years”. And also don’t think it went unnoticed that I gave you the coelacanth example of an ancient animal, alive today, and you acted as if I never responded. There can even be arguments made by your side on it, but the fact that you totally ignore it is interesting.)
Again, beef up your reading comprehension or read what I’m saying slower. This is why I accuse you of making straw man arguments, because you’re constantly attempting to argue against things I NEVER said… go back and read through the thread. You’ve repeatedly done this, only to have me bust you, and then you just throw more sh** against the wall, hoping something will stick. And round and round we go. The reason I have to repeat myself is because people like you divert and build straw man arguments all day long, while I keep having to drag you kicking and screaming back to what I actually said, desperately begging you to argue against what I really said if you choose to do so.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 10:15 PM
You did it again. LOL
Rightwinged, the study that says it evolved differently than previously thought also had the ASSUMPTION of evolution.
Oh this is funny. LOL
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Exactly! Okay, maybe you’ll get it now. The studies don’t say something evolved differently, they say nothing about how something evolved, unless it’s one of the times that it simply said it COULDN’T have happened the way they had assumed, but the evidence doesn’t point to how it did. This isn’t evidence for evolution. It’s sometimes evidence that something couldn’t have evolved the way previously ASSUMED (based entirely on a belief in evolution, not on evidence as it pertained to a particular species or whatever the subject is) or sometimes a finding completely unrelated to how something came to be.
So again, why are you and your friends so afraid to just let the evidence speak for itself? Why can’t we just report a finding as it is, either with no evolution language thrown in that has nothing to do with any actual finding, or without the “evolved differently” crap thrown in, simply because the actual evidence proved it couldn’t have evolved the way they’d previously assumed and taught. Assumed evolution and the obligatory line in articles where it doesn’t belong adds NOTHING. I’ve probably asked you a dozen times, and you’ll again ignore the question I’m sure: why can’t the evidence speak for itself? Why does a story have to be told, when it has nothing to do with any actual evidence? Even when they say something “evolved differently”, they are saying it NOT because they had evidence to prove it evolved one way to begin with, but because they ASSUMED it evolved one way originally, simply because it was the best way to fit it in to the story. Look, if you take animal X and you have no clue to its origins, but because you have an evolution story already written, you throw out ages when the animal evolved this feature or that trait, because it best fits the time line that is PRE-WRITTEN. The assumptions about how this animal evolved are not based on any real study or findings, they are based on the overall assumption of evolution. When actual study is done, proving that what you previously thought was wrong, or even when you do a study that says nothing about how something came to be the way it was, you don’t write up the study as if you somehow learned something about how it evolved, because you didn’t.
I REPEAT: BUILD UP YOUR READING COMPREHENSION OR READ SLOWER!!!
I just got through busting you for your straw man argument, that what I’m trying to do is falsify/overturn/call in to question, and now you still have the balls to make the same stupid argument?
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Rightwinged,
With regards to the dinosaur soft tissue: Scientists drew an inference that they wouldn’t find soft tissue because they hadn’t found it on any other fossil they had found. When they found it, it didn’t call into question our understanding of Evolution but of the rate of decomposition of soft tissue.
Do you see what I mean yet about drawing a conclusion that is more general than your evidence?
So a scientist will now ask the questions: Why did we find soft tissue on this dinosaur and not on others? And under what conditions tissue remain?
And that comment about scientists not looking for soft tissue. A paleontologists doesn’t go out and say, “I’m going to find a piece of soft tissue today.” You make it sound too easy, which betrays your lack of understanding about how rare fossils really are.
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 10:32 PM
(and thanks for continuing to ignore the 2 other points, as I busted you on in a couple comments ago)
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Rightwinged,
You want to attack Evolution. I can see that.
Do you understand it?
Here’s a simple test: Do scientists believe that man descended from chimpanzees?
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 10:37 PM
No, I specifically recall one of the scientists commenting on the find a couple years ago when it first hit the headlines saying that they had since found it in a few other bones, and it was likely more common than assumed, but that because of ASSUMPTIONS about how long soft tissue could survive coupled with the assumed age of the bones, they never looked for it. Again, that is assumed evolution holding back science.
And what you’re saying proves my point exactly. You say it doesn’t call in to question evolution, it calls in to question decomposition. That’s because evolution is assumed. When they thought they KNEW that such tissue couldn’t survive more than a couple thousand years at best, they don’t even consider questioning the age of what they’re looking at, because one doesn’t question the big E. Instead suddenly soft tissue can survive for an unthinkable tens of millions of years.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 10:39 PM
By the way, if you think my arguments are strawmen, you know as much about logic as you do about evolution.
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Yeah, it takes real moral conviction to spit in the faces of billions of human beings and then casually add a couple of minutes later that a book about communism is bad. Not that communism itself is bad, mind you, because as we all know “real” communism has never been tried.
You’re definitely lording over us ignorant proles from the moral high ground, big man.
ScottMcC on May 28, 2007 at 10:42 PM
NO IT ISN’T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Drawing a conclusion that is more general than your evidence!!!
I only repeat myself because you keep doing it.
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Ah, yet another diversion from the proven wrong bert.
How many times have I busted you for building straw man arguments, saying I’m trying to attack/falsify/overturn/call in to question evolution with what I’m saying. I’m simply asking that lack of evidence for origins and evidence against assumed evolutionary process be reported for what it is, without the obligatory and baseless evolution language constantly snuck in where it doesn’t belong.
I must have literally asked you a dozen times, “why can’t the evidence just speak for itself?” and the fact that you refuse to answer it, continue to build straw man arguments, and continue to divert and ask your stupid chimpanzee question when boxed in, speaks volumes. What’s really funny is that you expect me to do you the courtesy of following your diversion by answering your stupid questions, when YOU won’t answer any of mine, that pertain specifically to the debate we’re having.
Instead you defensively whine about me attacking evolution, when I’ll I’m asking is for honest unbiased reporting of findings, and throw out your diversions.
But by all means, ignore the question again, and demand that I do you the courtesy of answering your diversions.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 10:44 PM
RW,
So hang on a second. Twice I’ve seen the T-Rex tissue mentioned but I have yet to see how that damages evolutionary theory. Are you operating from the underlying assumption that because there was tissue found that the fossil was somewhat younger than 60 million years?
Krydor on May 28, 2007 at 10:44 PM
or rather, I repeat myself only because you keep repeating the same logical fallacy.
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Is a straw man argument not when one person creates an argument for their opponent so that they can argue against it, even though the other person didn’t even make the argument? Yeah, that’s what a straw man argument is, and that’s what you’ve continued to do (which I’ve REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED IN DETAIL). You’re so defensive of your God Darwin that you’re desperate to accuse me of trying to do something to your religion, when I’m simply asking for honest reporting, but you either lack the comprehension skills to understand that, or you’re blinded by your biases to see what I’m saying, because it’s as if you literally haven’t read my comments when you reply to me.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 10:47 PM
So, Krydor is now batting for Bert, and asserting the straw man that the T-Rex tissue comment was mentioned to “damage” evolutionary theory. It may or may not in the long run, it’s a mystery at this point as to how this happened and I draw no conclusions. I just find it a little annoying that you find something that contradicts a long held belief, and without even considering the question of the age (because that would be a huge problem) immediately the time of decomposition is questioned. It’s not a smoking gun, it’s not even a loaded gun. It was entered as a specific response to something here.
But again, thanks for playing the game, and showing how defensive you are about your religion by assuming I was trying to “damage” evolutionary theory. It was only mentioned in a specific reply to someone else who keeps building the same straw man because he’s defensive too, when all I want to know (and have literally asked him easily a dozen times) is if we should have honest science reporting, and leave evolution out of it when it has nothing to do with a finding. Your side has trouble agreeing with the fact that science should be honest this way.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 10:51 PM
And here I thought that you didn’t know anything about logic. LOL
So now I’m against honest reporting? LOL
So now I worship Darwin? LOL
LOL!!!!!
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 10:53 PM
RW,
Well, at least I have a better idea where you are coming from now. It’s something the Discovery Institute calls “teaching the controversey”.
So, here’s the thing. You think evolution is bunk, and it may well be. I doubt it, but science doesn’t work that way. At any rate, if you think evolution is wrong then what is your theory?
Krydor on May 28, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Rightwinged & JayHaw:
“Being able to recognize — even experience vicariously — what another creature is going through was an important leap in the evolution of social behavior.”
I found this assertion every bit as irritating as Rightwinged did, despite the fact that I could be accurately described as someone who does, in fact, “believe” in evolution. Evolutionary psychology, however, generally strikes me as an excercise in “logical” speculation which relies more heavily on concepts from game theory than on any actual evidence from the field.
Does the neuroscientist who made the statement of fact above suggest there’s any evidence that human beings ever lacked the wiring for such moral decision making? Indeed, the article starts out saying that “generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex.” [Emphasis mine.]
I suppose one could argue that the first appearance of homo sapiens was an important leap in the evolution of social behavior, but why bother? What it actually looks like here, and what is considerably more interesting as a subject for contemplation, is that we have always been equipped for the socialization of behavior.
JM Hanes on May 28, 2007 at 11:10 PM
I understand what teaching the controversy is about, but that’s not what I’m saying at all. As I’ve repeatedly explained to the oblivious Bert, I simply don’t understand why evolutionists have a problem with honest science reporting. Why is it when a finding either says nothing about how something, an animal a trait or feature of an animal, whatever, came to be how it is today or a finding says simply that it couldn’t have evolved the way previously assumed (assumed entirely based on an overall assumption of evolution because it was the only way to fit in to the current time line, etc., not based on any actual evidence)… why is it that in these situations, evolution is always thrown in the mix? Why is evolution mentioned at all when origins weren’t explored, and worse why is it that in cases where all that was found was that the previous assumption was wrong, is a new evolutionary assumption submitted? Why can’t the evidence and the findings just speak for themselves?
Asking me for my theory is a diversion and irrelevant to the VERY simple point I have been making from the beginning, that people are either too stupid and incapable of understanding what I’m saying or are playing dumb because they are afraid to answer, or are so blinded by their religious devotion to evolutionary theory that they can’t even comprehend what’s being said because their faith is so strong. A fun project might be counting how many times I’ve asked the question about honest science reporting without getting an answer… and not just because the answers don’t satisfy me, literally no one has even attempted to answer this. Krydor, you come off as a little brighter than most of these guys, so perhaps you might actually take a stab at it, but their silence on the question continues to speak volumes.
LOL is probably the best argument you’ve made all night bert, which is why I assume you keep saying it.
And no you’re not “now” against honest reporting, I didn’t just say this “now”, this has remained my point all along. Again, you’re either incapable of reading comprehension, pretending to be, or allowing your bias to cloud your thinking because you’re acting as if this is the first time I’ve said it, even though I’ve explained it so many times and even at a level small children could understand. Again it is YOU who built the straw man arguments about what I was trying to say, no matter how many times I said that wasn’t what I was saying, you kept insisting I was without even acknowledging that I had explained it was not. Honestly, this might be a good exercise for you. Reread my comments and see how much of them you actually remember. It comes off like you haven’t read them.
As for you worshiping Darwin, I don’t know that you do, but the fact that your bias forces you to continue building these straw man arguments to argue against and that you can’t comprehend anything I’ve actually said, and your desperate need to divert, lead me to the conclusion that you’re extremely defensive about your beliefs. You’d have to be pretty damn defensive since I’m not even attacking your beliefs, and simply asking why we can’t have honest science reporting.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 11:18 PM
JM Hanes, honestly, thanks for a well thought and non-defensive post from the “other side”. I seems like you agree that there is no reason to mention evolution, where it doesn’t belong. If there was evidence in a finding to support evolution (which occasionally is the case for microevolution, which isn’t in dispute), have at it. But when a study either says nothing about the origins of an animal or a feature or trait, or when a study proves that something could not have evolved the way previously thought (which was based entirely on evolutionary assumptions and time tables) but doesn’t show that it evolved differently or at all, why is it mentioned? Because evolution is treated like God is when the religious say that everything that happens is part of God’s plan.
Again, thanks for stating the obvious, despite being on the other side of the issue.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Rightwinged,
You keep saying again and again: It’s wrong to assume that evolution took place. But why?
What should have been the assumptions on this study?
You’re right to want to attack the assumptions. You’re wrong when you say that having assumptions to begin with is unscientific.
By that understanding, we can’t study economics or anything else for that matter.
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 11:31 PM
bert169, I don’t know how many times I can explain it and have you still not get it. When a study may have nothing to do with something’s origins or in a study where the assumptions are about something’s origins are overturned, it is not scientific to repeat the overall assumption that evolution happened. If the scientist wants to assume that in his head, go for it, but it is not scientific to say “evolved differently than we’d thought”, simply because it couldn’t have evolved the way that was previously assumed (and it was only previously assumed because the evolutionary time lines, etc. required it to evolve that way). Lack of evidence for evolution, is not evidence for evolution, so why report it like it is?
How many times have I now asked you, “why can’t the facts just speak for themselves without storytelling?”?
You ask what the assumptions about this study should have been… I don’t know, but they shouldn’t have repeatedly used the E-word throughout the article where it doesn’t belong. If they had shown evidence that morality evolved, then by all means, mention evolution while showing the evidence. But don’t assume something, mix your assumption in with a simple finding, and act like it verifies evolutionary assumptions. Again, I don’t know what their assumptions should have been, but I don’t see how assuming evolution benefited the study in any way. I wish I had the time to dig up the dozens of articles I’ve read where assumed evolution held back the scientific process. The T-Rex example isn’t anything that’s going to blow anyone’s mind, but it’s simple and makes the point. When scientists readily admit that because of evolutionary assumptions about age of dinosaurs and soft tissue decomposition they didn’t bother to look for soft tissue, they’re admitting that their assumptions held back science in the study of the soft tissue for a long time.
RightWinged on May 28, 2007 at 11:43 PM
But they do continue to look for dinosaur fossils, don’t they? Would the soft tissue of a dinosaur be found somewhere other than near the fossil?
Where should scientists look for soft tissue of a dinosaur while not searching for dinosaur fossils? On Mars?
Doesn’t searching for dinosaur fossils actually include the search for soft tissue since they would be found very near each other? It seems to me it would be hard to miss. LOL
bert169 on May 28, 2007 at 11:54 PM
They weren’t found “near” each other, it was found IN the bone. And where did I say they shouldn’t look for fossils? The point was, they dismissed the possibility of soft tissue existing in dinosaur fossils based on assumptions about age and decay. Assumptions held back science, but again, this is such a side issue (which is why you’re now focusing on it, as if you’re incapable of responding to more than one thing in a single comment.
How many times should I ask you, “why can’t the facts just speak for themselves without storytelling?” before you even attempt to answer? Seriously, you are incredibly weak if you can’t even try. I’ve probably asked 20 times now, if not more. And it’s not that I dismiss your response, it’s that you literally haven’t even acknowledge the question! Again, are you even reading the comments or just throwing a dart at your screen to pick a line to quote and respond to? It’s mindboggling that you’ve continued to do this all day. When you aren’t busy making up what I’m saying so that you can argue against something I’m not saying, you’re busy ignoring simple questions. I am literally beginning to think you’re insane.
RightWinged on May 29, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »