Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth?

That's hardly an explanation.

It's a start and is currently the best science can offer (which is a better explanation than anything else).

Just because you don't understand the mechanisms of natural and sexual selection doesn't mean it's "hardly an explanation".

It isn't wise to make assumptions.

You clearly have no grasp on selection processes if you're dismissing scientific hypotheses of our appreciation for music based in these principles.

Show me the science.

There is a whole lot of information available on natural selection and human evolution on the internet. It's very easily accessible; Google is usually a good start.

Aren't you finishing up, or finished with high school? Your science and bio courses should have covered this material (or least an introduction to evolution).

I'm guessing you're going off to university (you may be already). You'll be required to take core-ed classes; plenty of opportunity to learn about evolution there as well.

You've yet to do anything except shout "evolution" repeatedly. If you want to be taken seriously with your claim about how music arose, there must be research. It isn't enough to just think of a hypothesis. We test them. This is how we get theories. You should know this.

I did not formulate these theories, obviously. They were formulated by scientists and, as I said, there are currently a few competing hypothesis. Are you Google-handicapped or something? It takes literally seconds to find the latest information about this.

@Poly
The answer to OPs question is "no". Discussing the most plausible theories to the next best question is certainly related.

There is no such science, if we are talking about true science. There are merely speculative, untestable hypotheses, way too common in evolution theory.

Oh please let's not have an evolution argument.

This made me laugh.

Well, evolution is a theory in the scientific definition of the word. Evolution is actually an empirically proven fact.

Anyways, there is such science. You just have to not be a science-denier or research-disabled in order to learn it.

I started to read the initial post but gave up once I saw there were not any new paragraphs.

Microevolution is the empirically proven fact. It's important to distinguish the components of the evolutionary paradigm when talking about the science of evolutionary theory. On one hand we have the thesis of common ancestry which, as you know, says that all living organisms descended from a single primordial ancestor. The evidence for this is impressive and much more abundant than the evidence for the adequacy of proposed mechanisms. The idea that the entirety of biological complexity can be explained solely by natural selective processes is an extrapolation unsupported by empirical science and highly mathematically implausible.

I'm not saying "god" did it, nor am I a science denier. I'm simply pointing out the giant hole in the adequacy of the theory as a whole.

Wrong again. It is absolutely explained by natural processes (that is the very mechanism of natural selection). The "mathematical implausibility" is a logical fallacy and is not taken seriously in the scientific community.


In fact, you are a science denier (this should be obvious). There are no "giant holes" in the evolution model. Your high school really should have taught you this material.

Often, people who deny evolution as a fact are simply uneducated about it, and they misunderstand the model and evidence. The only giant holes are in your thinking.

This debate is going to lead nowhere good. Let's hope a lock is forthcoming.

.....or better yet, telling the combatants to cut it out or start a different thread.


edit (answer to Poly's post below): FSO shouldn't have her thread closed on this account.