Re: Waxing Erotic
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:10 pm
Tom Allen wrote:Umm... you better clarify "CBT" for Thumper. He's going to want the name of this therapist.
Belle wrote:Cognitive Behavior Therapy
Tom Allen wrote:Umm... you better clarify "CBT" for Thumper. He's going to want the name of this therapist.
Belle wrote:Cognitive Behavior Therapy
Since what you're referencing shows that you haven't really read or understood the theory, I'm going to suggest that you might be interested in reading "The Selfish Gene," which is probably one of the better modern explanations for lay (i.e., non-sciencey) people, followed, perhaps, by "The Blind Watchmaker." I mention this only in the interest of education, should you be so inclined.davidphd1866 wrote:The Theory of Evolution is a tautology. There is no fossil record to verify it. In other words: NO science can confirm (nor deny) the theory. "Survival of the Fittest" is the logical verbal equivilent of "Good students get A's in school".
I was going to ask the same thing, I want one of those.Tom Allen wrote:Umm... you better clarify "CBT" for Thumper. He's going to want the name of this therapist.hammyma wrote:I had a CBT therapist explain to me
Darn, I have one of those. Actually she is more eclectic but includes CBT in her bag of tricks. I may have a hard time getting through my next session now.Belle wrote: Cognitive Behavior Therapy
I think that falls under the general rubric of "I have made up my mind, don't bother me with the facts."I don't know what the word is for 'non-acceptance despite facts'.
Actually, there have been some fairly recent experiments that do provide what I consider to be sufficient proof. Also, while I was working on my dissertation, I had the "bloody obvious" concept explained to me. It is quite obvious from the various domesticated animals and the breeding for and against various traits that the forces of both natural and human-driven selection can result in some interesting lines. Given what we now know about genetics, including the likelihood of mutation, evolution should really be an accepted theorem.davidphd1866 wrote:Perhaps my point was missed--and your comments indicate such--I am not attempting to disprove Darwin's Theory. Instead, I am saying that it remains unproven.
I dont want to wade into the veracity of the theory - or indeed the rights or wrongs of teaching it as received wisdom but here's a point about continous evolution that sprang to mind..There is an assumption that evolution will optimise all components so why is this manifestly not the case? My two pennies worth is that the development isnt a linear thing at all. Infact, selection is more of a random scatter pattern so that certain environments favour features and enhance them but conversely, poor design may go uncorrected. Our own species is a great worked example of this. We are probably as evolved physically as we need to be now. We dont need to grow fur in the Northern hemisphere, we create clothes. We dont need to evolve better and faster legs - we have cars and - my own view - the whole childbirth process is so utterly flawed and badly designed that we should actually be following the path of the panda. Why not produce offspring that can walk within hours, eats solids and has a significantly smaller head that doesnt involve such damage to the mother? If we are the downtown cousin of the monkey then why are there still monkeys?davidphd1866 wrote:
Let me give a specific example. If Evolution is the "random mutation of cells" that adapt over "millions of years" then why is this mutation showing no evidence of a continuous evolution? Put another way, if we RANDOMLY evolved from the monkey, where is the half monkey? Where is the almostbutnotquiteyethuman monkey? Where is the manbearpig? The fossil record shows discreet differences in species--not a continuous evolvement from one to the other. Remember the bell curve....random....a continuous function and not a discreet one. If Evolution REALLY was what was happening, we'd probably look a lot more like Klingons than humans. We'd have really tough, impenatrable skin, super strength, super intelligence, etc. etc.....yet we remain soft humans. And why after millions of years is the shark still too stupid to distinquish between a surfboard and a succulent seal? (try to resist the fact that surfboards haven't been around for millions of years) "The World's Greatest Predator" has to bite something before they know if it is good food or not?
David