[W:926]The central evolution problem

[JacksinPA]

Re: The central evolution problem

So no higher intelligence?

I'm personally not aware of any.

 

[JacksinPA]

Re: The central evolution problem

it leaves out the comforting god did it

'Goddidit' is the ultimate simplification. Requires no study, no thought, no analytical thinking. Just kick the problem up stairs. Simple, right?

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

So, for the unpteenth time, what is the central problem then?

You still have to state what the problem is.

G4N stated "the problem" in her OP. If 1200 posts later you two are still in the dark, the fault is your own.

FROM THE OP

...
The scientific evidence is for evolution. Evolution is not debatable, because we have enough evidence for it. But how and why evolution happened is as much as mystery as ever.

Natural selection (Darwin's theory) is a fact. How could it not be? It says that individuals who are capable of surviving are more likely to survive. In other words, it says nothing. But it is a nothing that had not been said before.

Natural selection does explain certain things. But does it explain evolution? Lots of people say it does. But how do they know? They don't know, they just think they know.

The trickery is in pretending that evidence for evolution is evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution.

Intelligent Design theory says that evolution could not happen by chance. But ID has been called creationism and banned from science education.

One of the most important questions of our time -- Could life have evolved by chance? -- can't be asked or answered because it's all tangled up in misunderstandings and confusion.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

Thank you Angel! I must have said it hundreds of times by now, but somehow it won't sink in.

I think people are so used to the typical evolution arguments -- blind chance vs Jesus created everything in 6 days. Their mind just falls into that rut and there is no way to jolt it out.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

So no higher intelligence?

I said evolution is true, and you respond with that.:shock:

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: The central evolution problem

Thank you Angel! I must have said it hundreds of times by now, but somehow it won't sink in.

I think people are so used to the typical evolution arguments -- blind chance vs Jesus created everything in 6 days. Their mind just falls into that rut and there is no way to jolt it out.

And, this is a straw man, because biologists that accept evolution do not say 'blind chance'. So, your understanding of evolutionary theory is null and void.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

And, this is a straw man, because biologists that accept evolution do not say 'blind chance'. So, your understanding of evolutionary theory is null and void.

Biologists that accept the neo-Darwinist modern synthesis theory of evolution say "blind chance plus natural selection." You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: The central evolution problem

Biologists that accept the neo-Darwinist modern synthesis theory of evolution say "blind chance plus natural selection." You don't know what you are talking about.

No, it's 'random variation' not blind chance. And natural selection removes the concept of 'blind chance' all together. To say not is showing a vast misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

No, it's 'random variation' not blind chance. And natural selection removes the concept of 'blind chance' all together. To say not is showing a vast misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

No, that's just BS from Dawkins. He wants to deny that he believes life evolved by chance, so he re-frames it to fool people like you.

The fact is that neo-Darwinism says genetic variations are always random, never a response to the needs of the organism. And we already know that is not true. We already know that cells can modify their DNA. I have explained all that. We know that environmental stress can cause certain areas of DNA to mutate more rapidly.

There is much more to evolution than is currently known, but knowledge is increasing. And Dawkins and his followers are wrong.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: The central evolution problem

No, that's just BS from Dawkins. He wants to deny that he believes life evolved by chance, so he re-frames it to fool people like you.

The fact is that neo-Darwinism says genetic variations are always random, never a response to the needs of the organism. And we already know that is not true. We already know that cells can modify their DNA. I have explained all that. We know that environmental stress can cause certain areas of DNA to mutate more rapidly.

There is much more to evolution than is currently known, but knowledge is increasing. And Dawkins and his followers are wrong.

You certainly have not presented any evidence to the contrary, and no, that was the understanding a lot longer than Dawkins was alive. So sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

How can anyone have such a bad memory?

If evoultion is true, then it is true. There is no central problem.

So what is your point here?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

G4N stated "the problem" in her OP. If 1200 posts later you two are still in the dark, the fault is your own.

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
...
The scientific evidence is for evolution. Evolution is not debatable, because we have enough evidence for it. But how and why evolution happened is as much as mystery as ever.

Natural selection (Darwin's theory) is a fact. How could it not be? It says that individuals who are capable of surviving are more likely to survive. In other words, it says nothing. But it is a nothing that had not been said before.

Natural selection does explain certain things. But does it explain evolution? Lots of people say it does. But how do they know? They don't know, they just think they know.

The trickery is in pretending that evidence for evolution is evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution.

Intelligent Design theory says that evolution could not happen by chance. But ID has been called creationism and banned from science education.

One of the most important questions of our time -- Could life have evolved by chance? -- can't be asked or answered because it's all tangled up in misunderstandings and confusion.

FROM THE OP

Does not actually say what the problem is.

Does say that there is no evidence. That is utterly false. ID is unsupported by any evidence no matter how much you want it to be.

So what is the problem?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Thank you Angel! I must have said it hundreds of times by now, but somehow it won't sink in.

I think people are so used to the typical evolution arguments -- blind chance vs Jesus created everything in 6 days. Their mind just falls into that rut and there is no way to jolt it out.

No. We fully understand that you want to have the case both ways; you want to have evolution but with ID and with you being able to make statements without challenge.

Unlucky on both.

If you want to have ID you must show evidence to support it. (You will fail to find any, but if you do you win.)

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Originally Posted by zyzygy View Post
So no higher intelligence?

I said evolution is true, and you respond with that.:shock:

Yep, that's the point. If evolution is true then there is no intelligence directing it.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Does not actually say what the problem is.

Does say that there is no evidence. That is utterly false. ID is unsupported by any evidence no matter how much you want it to be.

So what is the problem?

Judging by your post, and strictly by this post, mind you, "the problem" lies in reading comprehension and close-mindedness and, considering the history of such posts going back over eighteen months, appears to be insoluble.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

No, that's just BS from Dawkins. He wants to deny that he believes life evolved by chance, so he re-frames it to fool people like you.

The fact is that neo-Darwinism says genetic variations are always random, never a response to the needs of the organism. And we already know that is not true. We already know that cells can modify their DNA. I have explained all that. We know that environmental stress can cause certain areas of DNA to mutate more rapidly.

There is much more to evolution than is currently known, but knowledge is increasing. And Dawkins and his followers are wrong.

You have not shown any evidence that cells can modify their DNA.

We would all be very interested in looking at that.

It sounds like the pet theory (hypothesis really) that Stalin's pet biologist had which caused the whole of Russian/Communist genetics to be unworkable for 40 years.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

"Dogmatists of the world unite!"
-- Simple Simon, Simon Says​

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Judging by your post, and strictly by this post, mind you, "the problem" lies in reading comprehension and close-mindedness and, considering the history of such posts going back over eighteen months, appears to be insoluble.

If you understand, and agree with, evolution then you can clearly not have a need for any guiding hand in it.

Otherwise you either don't understand it or you don't agree with it.

It's real simple.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

If you understand, and agree with, evolution then you can clearly not have a need for any guiding hand in it.

Otherwise you either don't understand it or you don't agree with it.

It's real simple.

"Simple" is the operative word, yes.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

"Simple" is the operative word, yes.

Evolution is the theory that explains how we have so much diversity of biological forms around the world. It does not have any guidance in it other than selection by nature.

If you have evidence that this theory is wrong show it or shut up. Other than that you are being dishinest in claiming stuff you have no evidence for.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Evolution is the theory that explains how we have so much diversity of biological forms around the world. It does not have any guidance in it other than selection by nature.

If you have evidence that this theory is wrong show it or shut up. Other than that you are being dishinest in claiming stuff you have no evidence for.

Evidence that a theory is wrong? You sound like a fundamentalist God theorist in full stride.
I live with two cats, plumber. Of course evolution takes place in the natural world.
That evolution is the result of chance and chance alone is impossible. Do you understand? Impossible.
Evolution takes plave within a natural order.
Without that natural order evolution would not take place.
Order implies design.
Design implies intelligence.
Now put that in your pipe and smoke it, in a hammock, on the Riviera, on holiday.

 

[Logician Man]

Re: The central evolution problem

Thank you Angel! I must have said it hundreds of times by now, but somehow it won't sink in.

I think people are so used to the typical evolution arguments -- blind chance vs Jesus created everything in 6 days. Their mind just falls into that rut and there is no way to jolt it out.

////blind chance vs. Jesus created everything in 6 days ///// How do you know the Christian story/claim of creation is any more or less valid than another of the other religious creation stories/claims of how things came to be are valid ?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Evidence that a theory is wrong? You sound like a fundamentalist God theorist in full stride.
I live with two cats, plumber. Of course evolution rakes place in the natural world.
That evolution is the result of chance and chance alone is impossible. Do you understand? Impossible.
Evolution takes plave within a natural order.
Without that natural order evolution would not take place.
Order implies design.
Design implies intelligence.
Now put that in your pipe and smoke it, in a hammock, on the Riviera, on holiday.

Yes, it is always evidence that a theory is wrong that sinks it not wishful word games.

Order does not imply design. You have been shown this multiple times. To claim it yet again is dishonest.

Design, in the sense you meant it first time does not imply intelligence but you have dishonestly changed the definition you are using, again.

I will be going to continue to challenge your false declarations. Get better or get used to being shown to be a liar.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

////blind chance vs. Jesus created everything in 6 days ///// How do you know the Christian story/claim of creation is any more or less valid than another of the other religious creation stories/claims of how things came to be are valid ?

You either misunderstand or distort. Either way, you're off the beam. Talking pantheism would be more in keeping with the OP p-o-v. Not the cartoon religion of your post.

 

[Logician Man]

Re: The central evolution problem

You either misunderstand or distort. Either way, you're off the beam. Talking pantheism would be more in keeping with the OP p-o-v. Not the cartoon religion of your post.

You sure have a nasty little habit of sticking your nose into questions that are not directed at you.