Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Personally, I suspect it's an 'empty' question, like asking why you are you, in your part of the world, rather than someone else in another part of the world.
Starfish and centipedes aren't even in the same phylum. I'd need a source on this one.anyone that has access to the tree of life can easily see where i got my information.
and regardless of what you say, science has no empirical proof of it.
your explanation above is a typical example of the kind evolutionist use to "explain" their dogma.
if there is empirical evidence then please provide it, sorry, saying it's so doesn't make it so.
What has this to do with placebo or nocebo effects?but why?
why should belief evolve?
using this line of reasoning, you can easily come to the conclusion that belief in god is only natural.
you could even take it further by saying belief in the supreme can make us supreme.
in this case, can we assume that god is a vital part in the evolution of humanity?
That, sadly, does seem to be what's going on. I wouldn't mind the definition dodge if he'd just actually provide the new definition.
take a look at your friendly nieghborhood tree of life.Starfish and centipedes aren't even in the same phylum. I'd need a source on this one.
As far as the observation of macroevolution, we've observed speciation, which fits the original definition. To work from an alternate definition, we actually need an alternate definition.
faith, or belief, maybe?What has this to do with placebo or nocebo effects?
if it is so natural, then why do evolutionists become thoroughly unglued over it?I think it's fair to say that a propensity to belief in the paranormal or supernatural is only 'natural'.
Except of course, the morphological, embryological, paleontological, biochemical, and genetic evidence, which you have never looked at and wouldn't be able to see, because faith filters out facts, and faith overpowers the rational mind.take a look at your friendly nieghborhood tree of life.
you need to ask evolutionists why they make these connections.
there certainly isn't any empirical evidence of it.
maybe you can provide them.Except of course, the morphological, embryological, paleontological, biochemical, and genetic evidence, which you have never looked at and wouldn't be able to see, because faith filters out facts, and faith overpowers the rational mind.
Is there a non-religious college near you, or a university? I would point you to the library.maybe you can provide them.Except of course, the morphological, embryological, paleontological, biochemical, and genetic evidence, which you have never looked at and wouldn't be able to see, because faith filters out facts, and faith overpowers the rational mind.I see no signs growing complexity.
“Our thesis is that the increase” (of complexity) “has depended on a small number of major transitions* in the way in which genetic information is transmitted between generations.”there HAS to be a reason smith says there is no empirical evidence for the major transitions of evolution.
smith wouldn't say such a thing if it actually existed.
so, you say there is evidence, but yet cannot provide it?Is there a non-religious college near you, or a university? I would point you to the library.
i will save you the trouble:“Our thesis is that the increase” (of complexity) “has depended on a small number of major transitions* in the way in which genetic information is transmitted between generations.”
*emphasis mine
The Major Transitions in Evolution (Paperback) by John Maynard Smith, Eörs Szathmáry (From the preamble.)
I don't remember that he said any such thing. It looks to me that he didn't say such a thing. It's been a while since I read that book, and I can't find my copy. I may have to buy a new one.
faith, or belief, maybe?
if it is so natural, then why do evolutionists become thoroughly unglued over it?
can you provide ANY scientific justification for this?
I suppose it depends on your definitions of faith & belief; can faith and belief be entirely below conscious awareness?faith, or belief, maybe?
Do they? like whom, in particular?if it is so natural, then why do evolutionists become thoroughly unglued over it?
I can't provide any scientific justification for why evolutionists become unglued over it, because I don't think they do....can you provide ANY scientific justification for this?
From what I can see, he said there is no empirical evidence that evolutionary lineages increase in complexity with time. That isn't what you claim he says. I'm not sure who actually wrote the subheading to that article, because the article itself seems to assume the opposite, and goes on to suggest mechanisms and ideas that may explain the major evolutionary transitions - transitions which no evolutionary biologist denies; they're pretty obvious.there HAS to be a reason smith says there is no empirical evidence for the major transitions of evolution.
smith wouldn't say such a thing if it actually existed.
...
as you can see, he DID say such a thing.
well, it just seems odd to me that this effect even exists.I suppose it depends on your definitions of faith & belief; can faith and belief be entirely below conscious awareness?
no, i wasn't aware of the nocebo effect.It's worth remembering that placebo/nocebo effects are not a direct result of an appeal to conscious awareness, they are subliminal. Placebo effects have been demonstrated even when the individuals are aware that they are taking a placebo;
just belch the word god at the next evolution meeting, and find out for yourself.I can't provide any scientific justification for why evolutionists become unglued over it, because I don't think they do.
what exactly do you think he means when he says "evolutionary lineages"?From what I can see, he said there is no empirical evidence that evolutionary lineages increase in complexity with time. That isn't what you claim he says. I'm not sure who actually wrote the subheading to that article, because the article itself seems to assume the opposite, and goes on to suggest mechanisms and ideas that may explain the major evolutionary transitions - transitions which no evolutionary biologist denies; they're pretty obvious.
smith explains that complexity isn't well defined, and he used examples in lieu of a definition.There are, incidentally, at least two theoretical reasons why complexity of an evolutionary lineage might be expected to increase over time, one of which was not apparent at the time that article was written. One is a statistical reason - when an organism has minimal complexity, there are obviously more ways for it to become more complex than more simple (it can't become simpler). Slightly more complex organisms can be radically more efficient, so one expects a proliferation of simple but not minimally simple organisms. As some organisms become more complex, the balance changes, and they can evolve to become either more complex or simpler. However, with increasing complexity, the ways to become more complex also increase, so the potential for increasing complexity diminishes at a slower rate. The expected result is a large number of organisms of low (but not minimal) complexity, with the numbers of creatures diminishing rapidly with increasing complexity - which is exactly what we see in the world.
i don't know, i question statistics for 2 reasons:Another reason is also statistical, but at the much lower level of statistical mechanics (thermodynamics); systems with low entropy & high available energy density tend to towards configurations that maximize their energy dissipation and increase in entropy. Complex subsystems dissipate energy, increasing entropy more effectively than simpler ones, so one should expect a tendency in favour of the development of the most complex configurations that can be supported by a given system, which will maximize the rate of dissipation of energy and the increase in entropy.
Says who, Beecher?...it must be pointed out that this effect isn't widespread, the majority of the people aren't affected by it.
No. It is certainly true that brain activity can control the muscles and the muscles can affect external matter, but there is - for reasons I've already explained - no mysterious mind-over-matter effect. The placebo and nocebo effects both work via the interaction of perceptions (both conscious and subliminal) and expectations to ultimately affect the autonomic nervous system. This can influence the body and brain in many ways, from the release of endorphins in the brain, to the stimulation or suppression of immune function. It can affect arousal, anxiety, relaxation, heart rate, digestion, breathing, and other organ functions. These effects are sufficient to account for the placebo & nocebo effects. In the majority of cases, they are just a case of reported well-being, that is people say they feel better (or worse). In a minority of cases, detectable physiological responses can be measured, and these are mediated via the sympathetic and parasympatheic nervous systems. No need for any mystical influences, or quantum woo. Sorry to disappoint you.whatever the case, it appears there is indeed such a thing as "mind over matter", the ability of the mind to alter reality.
it doesn't take much of a leap to connect this with quantum physics somehow.
after all, it appears that reality can be affected by the observer, and the placebo/ nocebo effect certainly supports that.
going even deeper, we can make the connection between the mind and the physical universe itself.
it appears that both are connected somehow, and not just a purely "observed/ observer" role
You need to distinguish between opinion on the origin of a belief and the factual accuracy of that belief. Evolutionists are generally sanguine about the former and antipathetic to the latter.just belch the word god at the next evolution meeting, and find out for yourself.
Huge wall of text, but wanted to pull out one point here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughter_in_animals
Assuming he actually wrote that subtitle, about which I have some doubt, he's saying that increase in complexity over time hasn't been observed in evolutionary lineages. Make of that what you will. Given that we do have comprehensive circumstantial evidence of increase in complexity (the evolutionary lineages themselves!), I assume he means we haven't actually observed it happening - which, in the case of paleontological lineages is a statement of the obvious. However, since evolutionary change, including speciation, has been observed both in the wild and in the lab - it's probably more a question of whether anyone has actually attempted to measure any increase in complexity, and how that could be done; e.g. what are the criteria?what exactly do you think he means when he says "evolutionary lineages"?
this man is basically talking about macro evolution here, he must be.
he cannot be talking about microevolution , because THAT has been observed.
I think the general consensus is that there is typically an accumulation of gradual changes, to more or less overall effect - that is visible in the fossil record, but the reasons behind the major transitions he identifies (I have my doubts about the first couple and the last one as being in the same class as the others, but, whatever) are debatable. There are many ways that such transitions can be accounted for within the TOE. Personally, I'm comfortable with some version of punctuated equilibrium - I have my doubts about the criteria for equilibrium, but it's a plausible explanation. It's certainly not a problem for evolutionary theory - as Gould himself said:...also take note that he says this complexity is achieve by a few major transitions, not by accumulating gradual changes.
this seems to confirm PE, and the gaps in the fossil record.
Missing fossils leave real gaps; I don't see your point.IOW, these gaps are real, they aren't a matter of "missing fossils"
also, these gaps dominate the record.
You don't need a sophisticated definition of complexity to see that it increases from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, or from single-celled organisms to multicelled organisms, or from sessile invertebrates to vertebrates...i don't know, i question statistics for 2 reasons:
1. you pretty well have to know what is being measured to be sure of the data.
How is that relevant?2. correlation doesn't imply causation.
It's true that you can use statistics to mislead people who don't understand the subject, but statistical mechanics is not a propaganda or marketing tool - it accounts for the thermodynamics of everyday life; gas pressure, heat transfer, evaporation, the arrow of time itself...let's not forget what twain said:
"there are 3 types of lies, little white lies, damnable lies, and statistics".
Yes, and? have you spotted a hole in the explanation?yes, statistics can be a valuable tool, but you need to know for certain what you are looking at.
No, I mean the speculative fantasies of people who think they can make a valid association between two disparate fields solely on the basis that they find both of them surprising and unintuitive and understand nothing of either. I'm talking about pseudoscience.quantum woo?
you mean like something can be here, but not here, that kind of woo?
or how something can be both a particle and a wave, that kind of woo?
or the events of today can affect the past, that kind of woo?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?