One more time!

If we stand on Charles Darwin shoulders and look beyond the human horizon to seach for a species of different shape than Human and more intelligent, perhaps we may see the light of evolution.But frist we must leave this perfect world of humans and the present perfect universe,to imagine intellengently, who knows many things may unfold regarding science.It seems me after scanning the forum on evolution the capabilities is out there.

 

Everything past becomes obvious with enough reflection this doesn't let us look into the future. To think such is insanity in it's own right.

 

To coin a phrase, speculation has humbled more men than age...

 

The past is what makes the future.Without past experiences how can one anticipate the future?There is a mind activity that is called Creative Thinking.This can't come forth without gathered information or experiences.Can it be said that technolgies evolved or was they created? Insanity is the confuse of thought,lack of information.Some theories in science has been discarded because it was proven to be incorrect.How many ideas have been replaced for something more stable?

 

To coin a phrase, speculation has humbled more men than age...

I assume, "humbled", it is referring to open mindness. Profound consideration or reflection.If so this is why I conclude with the belief that evolution is a very crude and rugged in character appearance.Irregularities in physiological and/or psychological.This seems to me to be a true evolution of something.When scientists or others humble them selfs to better understand concepts about there world or whatever, then change or a metamorphosis takes place.Once this happen then, a sequence of hope commences to gain.The so called -Intellengent Design group have commenced the sequence but they don't know what to do with such belief. The have became suppended in animation, frozen!

 

When scientists or others humble them selfs to better understand concepts about there world or whatever, then change or a metamorphosis takes place.Once this happen then, a sequence of hope commences to gain

That sounds like a bit of philosophic Lysenkoism.

 

That sounds like a bit of philosophic Lysenkoism.

What !!.... what is that? To boldly go where no human has gone before ? Wait a minute,this has nothing to do with communism. Matter of fact many philosophers has discussed this before,that is beyond the human flesh or perhaps the organizational construction This is about establishing a good foundation regarding an approach in scientific reasoning to prevent pit falls or being distracted to irrelevant information.If we can't take the present information and think outside the box woe on the human race. Are we confining ourselves in thought as the only living and thinking being in this universe of eternality?Some one(s) is making an attempt to go beyond.... in the field of the stem cells research. The attempt to explore the depths of Reversible Reaction.

 

I prefer Occum's Razor. Philosophy has it's place, but it is not science (though science can be philosophy). Too many people live for the argument, and facts are irrelevant.

 

I prefer Occum's Razor. Philosophy has it's place, but it is not science (though science can be philosophy). Too many people live for the argument, and facts are irrelevant.

Philosophy may not be chemical science or physical science or mathematical science but most of our philosophical concepts come from those who work in these fields and of sciences. This to me is probably the best position to be in to express some profound view of a situation,but it is not always a guarantee perfection that would manifest something of good and there are those who can take data from others and be just as informing about a particular subject matter.

 

Philosophy may not be chemical science or physical science or mathematical science but most of our philosophical concepts come from those who work in these fields and of sciences. This to me is probably the best position to be in to express some profound view of a situation,but it is not always a guarantee perfection that would manifest something of good and there are those who can take data from others and be just as informing about a particular subject matter.

Don't really agree with that statement, there are way too many exceptions to it. There is a large minority whom science is antithesis, either due to religious grounds or simple refusal to understand how the universe works in favor of personal views of how it should work (physics can be so inconvenient).

A lot of philosophy is at right angles to science, it neither confirms or denies, it just is. That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger is not a scientific POV (point of view).

 

Wait a minute,this has nothing to do with communism

Neither did Lysenko's work. He attempted to circumvent "classical" evolution, and held that a trait could be forced on the offspring by something that affected the parent. The one example usually given is his attempts to produce tailless mice by breeding pairs of mice whose tails had been amputated.

My point being that human nature is not really affected by philosophies - only the way the news gets reported.

 

Neither did Lysenko's work. He attempted to circumvent "classical" evolution, and held that a trait could be forced on the offspring by something that affected the parent. The one example usually given is his attempts to produce tailless mice by breeding pairs of mice whose tails had been amputated.

My point being that human nature is not really affected by philosophies - only the way the news gets reported.

But is philosopy attemp or effort to explain Science,that is,its various non-living and living construction and /or behaviours? Since, Science is what exist,living or non- living,intrinsically ?In regard to Dawian corner stone, his exploration is no more then the discovery of what is coined Intelligent design?Of course, it seems that his thinking was not on that level. Matter fact,most of the Philosphers during the 15th to 18th century was establishing this conclusion about Intellengent Design but was unconscious of such idea.Especially mind and body separation,that is , Dualism.I would seem it is as an analogy of" maganetism without the current".Which I believe is impossible.You most agree.It seem that our forefathers of Science have left us information to seek beyond creation,to boldly go where no thinking has gone before.Perhaps some have penetrated the intellectual gate in movies, with subtle sugestion,such the concept of Aliens?The with such idea out of this controlled evolution we will be able to understand the possibllitty of chios evolution producing a thinking being.

 

There was a time science was referred to as natural philosophy, but that has been centuries ago. Science is a method, a tool, to find facts, derive theories, and match theories to current information and get new facts. Theories lag behind in many cases, but the search goes on.

Philosophy is not science. It doesn't use the same tools.

Aliens are a good example. There are a lot of people convinced aliens walk with us. They have taken it to a level of religious fervor yet the science doesn't support this. It doesn't say aliens don't exist, but the likelihood of them actually being here without proof is pretty slim given how easy it would be to prove such an event if it happened.

Creationism is another good example, there are a lot of people who can't conceive of such a thing as evolution, usually because they have faith. Faith does not coexist with science very well, a lot of people can do both, but many can't. The evidence for natural selection and evolution grows, but many people will never see nor acknowledge it because they know the truth. You can't really argue with them, you just try to keep them from passing laws to limit the pursuit of knowledge, or laws that prevent knowledge being taught in the public forum because they don't agree with it.

Pure philosophy is a lot like faith. Thought experiments without real experiments do not mix very well. Circular arguements abound, without any reality checks. One of my favorite writers once wrote that man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing animal. Philosophy can take this to the extreme.

 

I think you have misunderstood me,I said, ''philosophy attemps to explain science".The other day a woman give me a disk tape about creation was verfied by science,I have not listen to it yet,although thats is irrevealent to me,for the reason that this is the wall no one wants to jump over,including scientists and theological thinkers.Perhaps the concept of automaton or predestination rises its frightening head that probably produces a frozen state of creativity.But this is the fence we must jump over to perceive that evolution did exist and still does,that is from Uncontrolled Evolution to Controlled Evolution.

 

Perhaps the concept of automaton or predestination rises its frightening head that probably produces a frozen state of creativity

Nah, Presbyterians have been dealing successfully with predestination for some time.

from Uncontrolled Evolution to Controlled Evolution

See, you are a Lysenkoist. That was precisely what he intended to achieve.

I said, ''philosophy attemps to explain science"

I suspect you may be mistaken in this. Or where do you see philosophers attempting to make sense of quantum chromodynamics? The utility, perhaps, but the phenomena?