|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 6, 2019 17:18:32 GMT
I wonder, are you aware that no-one credible actually says that evolution is a process achieved through a series of accidents?
Oh look! Another Lamarckian. Oh dear, having to lie about me to hide your ignorance is a new one. I challenge you to find a single credible scientist who says that evolution is achieved through a series of accidents. I know you will avoid answering this, but it's gonna be funny watching the things you do to hide your ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 6, 2019 20:13:39 GMT
Weird happenings in Laredo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman 猫的主人 on Nov 6, 2019 21:17:01 GMT
What brand and model of automobile was it?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 6, 2019 21:29:57 GMT
What brand and model of automobile was it? 'Godsmobile' AD32. Unfortunately it failed to start when Jesus needed a getaway car from the crucifixion. The rest, as they say 'is history'! This was an earlier model.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 6, 2019 23:20:16 GMT
Oh look! Another Lamarckian. Oh dear, having to lie about me to hide your ignorance is a new one. I challenge you to find a single credible scientist who says that evolution is achieved through a series of accidents. I know you will avoid answering this, but it's gonna be funny watching the things you do to hide your ignorance. I challenge you to read and understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 6, 2019 23:39:34 GMT
FilmFlaneur said:[full text here] < clips >
1) nearly all of them would accept that evolution moves by successful increment and not by sudden complexities. Which was the point. 2) There are no observations that I know of 3) there is overwhelming scientific consensus about the modern evolutionary synthesis 4) And your superiority complex is showing again, as is a preference for insults over argument. 5) I think your relative lack of knowledge here has been dealt with already by others. 1) That would be a great point if we were discussing origin of species since already living things can afford to make small changes since they have developed strategies to protect those small changes from the environment. It would help if you were capable of developing a mental picture of what is being discussed. Lifeless matter has no means to protect any developments from the environment. That requires a large set of complex interrelated systems working together, which necessarily be developed all at once. 2) Is that another of your debating rules? Your rules are ridiculous. 3) No, but there is an overwhelming political consensus driven by people who, like you, have no idea what they are talking about. They refuse to address the real issue of the first life, just as you have here. 4) You have to let that go. It is not an argument. You are just as guilty of what you accuse others of doing. 5) See #4.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 6, 2019 23:45:01 GMT
What brand and model of automobile was it? 'Godsmobile' AD32. Unfortunately it failed to start when Jesus needed a getaway car from the crucifixion. The rest, as they say 'is history'! This was an earlier model. < video see quoted > Typical of an atheist your only concept of religion is Christianity. Two sides of the same bad coin, remember now?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2019 0:15:50 GMT
Oh dear, having to lie about me to hide your ignorance is a new one. I challenge you to find a single credible scientist who says that evolution is achieved through a series of accidents. I know you will avoid answering this, but it's gonna be funny watching the things you do to hide your ignorance. I challenge you to read and understand. Dodge noted.
Challenge still stands
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 7, 2019 0:27:21 GMT
I challenge you to read and understand. Dodge noted.
Challenge still stands It's not really a challenge since you haven't described what you believe is the source of genetic variation either in your own words or from the established writings.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2019 0:34:59 GMT
Dodge noted.
Challenge still stands It's not really a challenge since you haven't described what you believe is the source of genetic variation either in your own words or from the established writings. That is a strawman, I am not claiming anything.
You are making the claim that evolution is driven by randomness, I am challenging you to cite a single credible source for this.
You won't, you will dodge, but as I said it's funny to watch you flounder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 7, 2019 1:01:06 GMT
It's not really a challenge since you haven't described what you believe is the source of genetic variation either in your own words or from the established writings. That is a strawman, I am not claiming anything.
You are making the claim that evolution is driven by randomness, I am challenging you to cite a single credible source for this.
You won't, you will dodge, but as I said it's funny to watch you flounder. Your brain is all muddle. If you are not claiming anything then I need not reply. Your "rules" are idiotic, little soldier. Mentally retarded atheists, and most of them are mentally retarded, are constantly failing to make any case, demanding one from others, then ignoring it. By "randomness" is meant various things in various contexts. Here it simply means the absence of any other agency. If you can cite no purposed agency yourself then that leaves randomness and I win the point. If you could read and understand anything you would see you are the one dodging and floundering.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2019 1:11:59 GMT
That is a strawman, I am not claiming anything.
You are making the claim that evolution is driven by randomness, I am challenging you to cite a single credible source for this.
You won't, you will dodge, but as I said it's funny to watch you flounder. Your brain is all muddle. If you are not claiming anything then I need not reply. Your "rules" are idiotic, little soldier. Mentally retarded atheists, and most of them are mentally retarded, are constantly failing to make any case, demanding one from others, then ignoring it. By "randomness" is meant various things in various contexts. Here it simply means the absence of any other agency. If you can cite no purposed agency yourself then that leaves randomness and I win the point. If you could read and understand anything you would see you are the one dodging and floundering. right, so you dont even know what randomness is. why do you think you have a platform to talk about any of this when you so clearly do not understand even the basic concepts here?
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Nov 7, 2019 5:17:13 GMT
That is not necessarily anti-evolution. It just says that evolution is a designed system. The question then becomes whether evolution, with all its elements, can be said to reflect the existence of an all-good, caring God. listverse.com/2009/03/04/top-10-worst-things-in-nature/ listverse.com/2013/06/25/10-sadistic-killers-of-the-natural-world/ There are some higher mammals that flirt with emotions such as tenderness, particularly when it comes to babies of various species, and there have been some amazing examples of purported predators showing something akin to “mercy”, to infants of their traditional prey species; particularly when there is some aspect of maternal instinct involved. But for the most part, the way of the world is to kill to eat, without the hindrance of conscience, over and over. Is this cavalcade of cruelty-as-process really the design of a moral entity? Evil in the world mitigates the possibility of a caring loving god. Of course theists will always point to free will to explain a good god who permits evil. But there is also the possibility that god is not good or evil, but some pantheistic regulator of creation. He finds as much beauty in death and destruction as he does in life.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Nov 7, 2019 5:22:37 GMT
I said the Big Bang supports or "suggests" the religious idea that the universe had a beginning and there was a "Prime Movement" which began it. Learn to read. The Big Bang suggests no such thing. Learn to think. The Big Bang was not the beginning of an expanding universe? Was it not a prime movement? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 7, 2019 5:58:12 GMT
The question then becomes whether evolution, with all its elements, can be said to reflect the existence of an all-good, caring God. listverse.com/2009/03/04/top-10-worst-things-in-nature/ listverse.com/2013/06/25/10-sadistic-killers-of-the-natural-world/ There are some higher mammals that flirt with emotions such as tenderness, particularly when it comes to babies of various species, and there have been some amazing examples of purported predators showing something akin to “mercy”, to infants of their traditional prey species; particularly when there is some aspect of maternal instinct involved. But for the most part, the way of the world is to kill to eat, without the hindrance of conscience, over and over. Is this cavalcade of cruelty-as-process really the design of a moral entity? Of course theists will always point to free will to explain a good god who permits evil. But there is also the possibility that god is not good or evil, but some pantheistic regulator of creation. He finds as much beauty in death and destruction as he does in life. It depends on how one perceives evil, but this is a good point for countering theist belief in a God that is supposedly all loving, caring, compassionate and giving. Theist fundy republicans mustn't worship a caring loving god either and use "selective" will to press upon what their God is supposed to be about. The only regulator of what we see or perceive as creation, is our own minds. We act out on it and create the consequence.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Nov 7, 2019 6:47:34 GMT
Evil in the world mitigates the possibility of a caring loving god. Of course theists will always point to free will to explain a good god who permits evil. But there is also the possibility that god is not good or evil, but some pantheistic regulator of creation. He finds as much beauty in death and destruction as he does in life. It depends on how one perceives evil, but this is a good point for countering theist belief in a God that is supposedly all loving, caring, compassionate and giving. Theist fundy republicans mustn't worship a caring loving god either and use "selective" will to press upon what their God is supposed to be about. The only regulator of what we see or perceive as creation, is our own minds. We act out on it and create the consequence. You should read Herman Hesse's novel "Demian". It explores the idea of the god Abraxas, who is both good and evil. The Old Testament describes god as angry and jealous. But fundamentalists see him as good nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 7, 2019 9:23:45 GMT
Oh dear, having to lie about me to hide your ignorance is a new one. I challenge you to find a single credible scientist who says that evolution is achieved through a series of accidents. I know you will avoid answering this, but it's gonna be funny watching the things you do to hide your ignorance. I challenge you to read and understand. Seems to me he understood you just fine. You seem to contend that non-random evolution is Lamarckian evolution. However, while Lamarckian evolution is certainly non-random, so is Darwinian evolution. Yes, mutations are - for all intents and purposes - random. They're not really random, except perhaps partially on a quantum level, but they are random in the sense that they cannot be predicted. Even if they were truly totally random, however, evolution itself is not. It's as if you are driving your car, then a random part of the vehicle broke down. Perhaps a flat tyre, perhaps a radiator leak, perhaps you lost a gear... Now, as far as you are concerned, the event was random, because you couldn't predict it. But how you choose to respond is not random at all. You don't start fiddling with your spare tyre if you have a radiator leak. You respond to the situation which has arisen, no matter what the cause of that situation. That's how evolution works, too: a creature doesn't decide what sort of mutations to have, but it will naturally make the best of it no matter what it is. This may put it at a disadvantage, or maybe an advantage. That's not random, either. If a disadvantage, the creature will have a lower chance of breeding, and so will its offspring if it has any. It will lose out in the end. If the mutation was advantageous, however, it will have a higher chance of breeding, and so will its offspring, meaning its genes are far more likely to stick around. And so, in this manner, advantageous mutations - however rare - will remain, and disadvantageous mutations - however common - will be discarded. There is nothing random about this process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 7, 2019 9:29:58 GMT
It depends on how one perceives evil, but this is a good point for countering theist belief in a God that is supposedly all loving, caring, compassionate and giving. Theist fundy republicans mustn't worship a caring loving god either and use "selective" will to press upon what their God is supposed to be about. The only regulator of what we see or perceive as creation, is our own minds. We act out on it and create the consequence. You should read Herman Hesse's novel "Demian". It explores the idea of the god Abraxas, who is both good and evil. The Old Testament describes god as angry and jealous. But fundamentalists see him as good nonetheless. The OT was about a bunch of confused, fearful and ignorant people. They were all frustrated and angry at life's harsh suffering. Fundies are just harsh individuals themselves, so need to be steered clear of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 7, 2019 10:33:29 GMT
Your brain is all muddle. If you are not claiming anything then I need not reply. Your "rules" are idiotic, little soldier. Mentally retarded atheists, and most of them are mentally retarded, are constantly failing to make any case, demanding one from others, then ignoring it. By "randomness" is meant various things in various contexts. Here it simply means the absence of any other agency. If you can cite no purposed agency yourself then that leaves randomness and I win the point. If you could read and understand anything you would see you are the one dodging and floundering. right, so you dont even know what randomness is. why do you think you have a platform to talk about any of this when you so clearly do not understand even the basic concepts here? Concession noted, since you do not even to pretend you know what the source of genetic variation is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 7, 2019 11:20:50 GMT
Karl Aksel said: [ full text here] < clips >
1) Yes, mutations are - for all intents and purposes - random ... they are random in the sense that they cannot be predicted. 2) If the [random] mutation was advantageous 1) That is just what I said, so why are you complaining? 2) I understand evolutionary theory, but this discussion in not about evolution. This discussion is about how lifeless matter might become a living cell and by what agencies. Once you have a living species it has rather elaborate defenses against the environment. Before you have that there are no defenses. In a prebiotic environment smaller chains of RNA and smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over longer chains and molecules. The elaborate defenses are not yet in place. Any "improvement" in the small chains is readily lost. If you want to argue over my description of the source of genetic variation then you should have one different from mine, no? The source of genetic variation has been assumed to be a failure to copy. Genes have to be copied to be passed to other generations. The mechanism of duplication has requirements. An unhealthy animal might be missing certain required nutrients or have conditions not suitable to the duplication process. That is often described for lack of better terms as "random." The failure to copy an existing pattern might in unusual cases cause a pattern with various advantages the old pattern did not have. That is the basic foundation of evolutionary theory, which no one here is arguing. It is however irrelevant to the discussion of the origin of life. As explained here it has been observed in laboratories for decades that short RNA chains do not develop long ones because the shorter chains have the competitive advantage. The longer chains have no protective phospholipid bilayer or cell walls to prevent the onslaught. The short chains are more difficult to catch hold.
|
|
