Singularity. Is it possible? When?

[Anaxogoras]

lol Gavagai, I know how you feel even though you are probably refering to some of my words with your statement.

Nope.

[mechanic]

thing is, thats exactly what can be done because scientific theory isnt about individual perception. the theory doesnt need interpretation, it stands on its own. the whole point about the scientific method is that the theories are objective, not subjective. anyone competent can repeat the experiments and should get the same results. this objectivity is what makes it really useful.

essentially what quite a few replies boil down to is:

"I disagree with this theory because I dont understand it properly, so my own observations look like evidence to refute the theory rather than support it."

this is especially galling when applied to evolution because of all the important theories we have, this is one of the simplest and most elegant. you dont need to have a PhD in maths or physics to understand it.

Evolution has only recently in our history been a truly 'scientific' theory. What's more we have not yet even come close to fully understanding or mapping the relevent data that makes the study of evolution a scientific one.

Also, you read that differently to how I wanted it to be read. I meant that even if we all read the same paper on a theory, individual perceptions would form when then asked to repeat the theory from memory. Darwin probably had very different ideas than we now individualy form about his theory. Alot of what we think we know today is just an amalgamation of individual perceptions that came together to form a more widely accepted theory. The vast majority will never try to add to it other than their accidental changes by individual perception (dependant often on the weight of influence the individual has). But to discourage the individualism in the human spirit would be not only to cut out the daft peceptions but also the great leaps taken by indivdualism sometimes intentionaly or other times by mistake.

 Even further along that road leads us to the realisation that everything we think we know at any given moment is also knowledge that has followed the rules of evolution. As we zoom out a bit more and get a long term perspective on that, we see that survival of the most agreed with theory will produce our sum theorectical knowledge at the end of time.

But yes of course, 'scientific evidence' on the other hand is not something that can be argued with untill the science itself is proved false.

[Reaper90]

I learned everything I need to know about human evolution and the future of mankind from the movie Idiocracy.

WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE AND SAD TRUTH!

Personally I expect either robots or space aliens to exterminate the human race at some point in the future, if they're smart.

[Anaxogoras]

I meant that even if we all read the same paper on a theory, individual perceptions would form when then asked to repeat the theory from memory. Darwin probably had very different ideas than we now individualy form about his theory.

You would be surprised to know how accurate Darwin's original formulation was in The Origin of Species.  The theory is still with us in more or less the same form that he proposed it.

One of my favorite stories is his dispute with Lord Kelvin (the physicist) about the age of the Earth.  Kelvin said that Darwin's proposed age for the Earth was far too old, and Darwin flatly told Kelvin that he was wrong.  In the end, the age of the Earth is even older than what Darwin inferred.

But as a foundational work of an entire science, the Origin of Species is to biology (and evolution) what the Principia is to physics.

[mechanic]

I have a copy of it on the shelves here Point taken, evolution is one theory that remained close to if not exactly the original premise. Yet surely that means it is a theory that needs some individual spin every once in a while to keep things certain. We must look at all the daft theories to see if it sparks some genius. Otherwise the theory of evolution has stopped evolving.

[maddafinga]

I have a copy of it on the shelves here Point taken, evolution is one theory that remained close to if not exactly the original premise. Yet surely that means it is a theory that needs some individual spin every once in a while to keep things certain. We must look at all the daft theories to see if it sparks some genius. Otherwise the theory of evolution has stopped evolving.

We've learned an incredible amount since Darwin initially published, the theory is well advanced past that initial point. 

One thing that I see quite a bit during discussions of  science of many types, and biology in particular, is the actual meaning of the word "theory."

In common usage, theory means basically "hunch" or "hypothesis."  In scientific discussions, the word Theory has a much different and much weightier meaning: Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

From this page  http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm  which actually has one of the best and most clear definitions of various terms regarding Laws Theories and Hypothesis I've run across online.  Definitely worth a read here. 

Before a clear discussion can be had, terms need to be properly defined. 

[mechanic]

 Hey, Madda. Wasn't my point to make that evolution has or has not remained the same as Darwin thought it, since you're replying to my quote.

[maddafinga]

Hey, Madda. Wasn't my point to make that evolution has or has not remained the same as Darwin thought it, since you're replying to my quote.

Oh I know man, I was just using that to link my reply to the general trend of the thread. 

[Anaxogoras]

We've learned an incredible amount since Darwin initially published, the theory is well advanced past that initial point.  

If you mean that we have a mountain of confirming evidence for the theory, then I absolutely agree.  That is what I meant when I said that the same theory is still with us today.

Your point is also well made that we understand the theory in a far more sophisticated way than what existed, for example, 100 years ago.  There's no arguing against that.

[maddafinga]

If you mean that we have a mountain of confirming evidence for the theory, then I absolutely agree.  That is what I meant when I said that the same theory is still with us today.

Exactly what I meant, we've learned in much more detail however and had whole new frontiers of exploration open up, like DNA, every last one of which continued to confirm and build upon Darwin's earlier work.  To quote a famous Biologist "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."    http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

People have the idea that evolution is just a discussion of human evolution or of creationism, when in reality, it has shows itself to be essentially the entire branch of science known as biology. 

[Anaxogoras]

People have the idea that evolution is just a discussion of human evolution or of creationism, when in reality, it has shows itself to be essentially the entire branch of science known as biology. 

Can't help myself...

I love that old British biologist's reply when he was asked if he had any insight into God's creation: "The old boy must be inordinately fond of beetles."

[FireDrgn]

Get your logical fallacies straight before you come after me.

Your absolutely right it was an ad hominem fallacy.  

Moreover, I gave you a thorough and sound explanation of the role of death in evolution, which you rejected.

Deaths roll as an optimizer is irrelevant it does not make death a necessity. Let me be charitable here as well.  You claim may be true. death is a feature. Its your argument that is false.

  

Of course research scientists make logical inferences and deductions as part of their trade, but what you're doing is completely different.

If i am applying logical necessity and I am doing something differant than scientist.  That only leaves scientist with philosophy. You can not exclude logical necessity and philosophy. Your left with what rocks dream about. nothing.


 

It is their belief as scientists that death can actually imply a competitive advantage in the struggle between species on planet Earth, i.e. death is a feature.

 
So you want me to take their belief on faith? or may I please apply logical necessity?

 

Now, you object that death could not be regarded as a feature except in a philosophical way

.
Yes

your only argument for this claim was that "feature" is a human idea,

Yes, I see no argument from u that this  is not the case.  I did see another ad hominem.

That's the kind of bunk logical necessity

Can you give a response that does not require logical neccesity?

[FireDrgn]

My bad.  I don't have time for an arguing reply but here's some starters on evolution.  In order of relevance -
http://academicearth.org/subjects/biology/category:127
http://www.khanacademy.org/#Biology
http://academicearth.org/subjects/biology/category:7

No worries .. Ive been plently busy myself.   Thanks for the links.

[bozon]

Deaths roll as an optimizer is irrelevant it does not make death a necessity. Let me be charitable here as well.  You claim may be true. death is a feature. Its your argument that is false.

This is the difference between philosophy and science. To make something happen in time shorter than the age of the universe science will consider it a requirement. Philosophy will call it an optimizer.

A physicist and a philosopher go to a brothel.
Madam: "I have a girl for you. Very pretty but she's new and you much approach her slowly. In each step you are allowed to make only half the distance to her".
Philosopher: "Bah! I know that problem, I'll keep making half the distance and never reach her, I am not paying for that" and leaves angrily.
Physicist: "Deal! after a few steps I'll be close enough..."

[Anaxogoras]

This is the difference between philosophy and science. To make something happen in time shorter than the age of the universe science will consider it a requirement. Philosophy will call it an optimizer.

No, that is the difference between firedrgn and science/philosophy.  I would wager that the percentage of philosophers who question the central tenets of evolutionary theory is about the same as the percentage of scientists who do the same.