Are u going to leave USA now?

[gsa]

Yes, there is. Those with the genes that are more advantageous reproduce and pass them on and the ones who don't, don't reproduce and their lineage dies out. So the "purpose" of natural selection is to better enable the species to survive.

But this is the result of a mindless, purposeless process. There's no intentionality, purpose or aim. Moreover, species are an outcome of this process, but nothing "intended" by it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But this is the result of a mindless, purposeless process. There's no intentionality, purpose or aim. Moreover, species are an outcome of this process, but nothing "intended" by it.

You can deny that it has a purpose all you wish, but the facts of it are staring you in the face. Genes leading to better adaptation to the environment = better survival for the species. Those who don't have those adaptations die out. Simple.

 

[gsa]

You can deny that it has a purpose all you wish, but the facts of it are staring you in the face. Genes leading to better adaptation to the environment = better survival for the species. Those who don't have those adaptations die out. Simple.

Adaptation is no more of a purpose than erosion is. Here's what an actual expert says:

In my classes, however, I still characterize evolution and selection as processes lacking mind, purpose, or supervision. Why? Because, as far as we can see, that’s the truth. Evolution and selection operate precisely as you’d expect them to if they were not designed by, or steered by, a deity—especially one who is omnipotent and benevolent. And, more important, the completely material nature of selection is of great historical and intellectual importance. After all, Darwin’s greatest achievement was the explanation of organismal “design” by a completely naturalistic process, replacing the mindful, purposeful, and god-directed theory that preceded it....

Evolution and selection lack any sign of divine guidance. Earlier teleological theories based on divine or spiritual guidance, such as orthogenesis, have fallen by the wayside. Natural selection is a cruel and wasteful process. 99% of the species that ever lived went extinct without leaving descendants. There is no sign that evolution always goes in a fixed direction. Do primates always get bigger brains? There is some suggestion that orangutan populations evolved smaller ones. Fleas lost their wings; tapeworms lost nearly everything when evolving a parasitic lifestyle. There is no sign that the goal of evolution was Homo sapiens (if that were true, why the virtual extinction of Neandertals or the robust australopithecines)?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Adaptation is no more of a purpose than erosion is. Here's what an actual expert says:

In my classes, however, I still characterize evolution and selection as processes lacking mind, purpose, or supervision. Why? Because, as far as we can see, that’s the truth. Evolution and selection operate precisely as you’d expect them to if they were not designed by, or steered by, a deity—especially one who is omnipotent and benevolent. And, more important, the completely material nature of selection is of great historical and intellectual importance. After all, Darwin’s greatest achievement was the explanation of organismal “design” by a completely naturalistic process, replacing the mindful, purposeful, and god-directed theory that preceded it....

Evolution and selection lack any sign of divine guidance. Earlier teleological theories based on divine or spiritual guidance, such as orthogenesis, have fallen by the wayside. Natural selection is a cruel and wasteful process. 99% of the species that ever lived went extinct without leaving descendants. There is no sign that evolution always goes in a fixed direction. Do primates always get bigger brains? There is some suggestion that orangutan populations evolved smaller ones. Fleas lost their wings; tapeworms lost nearly everything when evolving a parasitic lifestyle. There is no sign that the goal of evolution was Homo sapiens (if that were true, why the virtual extinction of Neandertals or the robust australopithecines)?

I'm not interested in what some atheist activist who twists science for ideological ends has to say about it.

 

[gsa]

I'm not interested in what some atheist activist who twists science for ideological ends has to say about it.

This guy twists science for ideological purposes? As opposed to you?

Here's the "about the author" page info:

Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology. Coyne received a B.S. in Biology from the College of William and Mary. He then earned a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Harvard University in 1978, working in the laboratory of Richard Lewontin. After a postdoctoral fellowship in Timothy Prout's laboratory at The University of California at Davis, he took his first academic position as assistant professor in the Department of Zoology at The University of Maryland. In 1996 he joined the faculty of The University of Chicago.

Coyne's work is focused on understanding the origin of species: the evolutionary process that produces discrete groups in nature. To do this, he uses a variety of genetic analyses to locate and identify the genes that produce reproductive barriers between distinct species of the fruit fly Drosophila: barriers like hybrid sterility, ecological differentiation, and mate discrimination. Through finding patterns in the location and action of such genes, he hopes to work out the evolutionary processes that originally produced genetic change, and to determine whether different pairs of species may show similar genetic patterns, implying similar routes to speciation.

Coyne has written over 115 refereed scientific papers and 130 other articles, book reviews, and columns, as well as a scholarly book about his field (Speciation, co-authored with H. Allen Orr). He is a frequent contributor to The New Republic, The Times Literary Supplement, and other popular periodicals.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This guy twists science for ideological purposes? As opposed to you?

Here's the "about the author" page info:

Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology. Coyne received a B.S. in Biology from the College of William and Mary. He then earned a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Harvard University in 1978, working in the laboratory of Richard Lewontin. After a postdoctoral fellowship in Timothy Prout's laboratory at The University of California at Davis, he took his first academic position as assistant professor in the Department of Zoology at The University of Maryland. In 1996 he joined the faculty of The University of Chicago.

Coyne's work is focused on understanding the origin of species: the evolutionary process that produces discrete groups in nature. To do this, he uses a variety of genetic analyses to locate and identify the genes that produce reproductive barriers between distinct species of the fruit fly Drosophila: barriers like hybrid sterility, ecological differentiation, and mate discrimination. Through finding patterns in the location and action of such genes, he hopes to work out the evolutionary processes that originally produced genetic change, and to determine whether different pairs of species may show similar genetic patterns, implying similar routes to speciation.

Coyne has written over 115 refereed scientific papers and 130 other articles, book reviews, and columns, as well as a scholarly book about his field (Speciation, co-authored with H. Allen Orr). He is a frequent contributor to The New Republic, The Times Literary Supplement, and other popular periodicals.

I know who he is.

 

[dust1n]

Yes, there is. Those with the genes that are more advantageous reproduce and pass them on and the ones who don't, don't reproduce and their lineage dies out. So the "purpose" of natural selection is to better enable the species to survive.

Ah, the purpose of rain must be to hit the ground then.

 

[dust1n]

Sometimes loving someone means telling them things they will find painful or that they don't want to hear.

Ah, well this is probably no good then.

[VERSE=Romans 13:10,ASV]Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law.[/VERSE]

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ah, well this is probably no good then.

[VERSE=Romans 13:10,ASV]Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law.[/VERSE]

There's no contradiction there. The highest good is what is best for your soul.

 

[dust1n]

There's no contradiction there. The highest good is what is best for your soul.

My NIV translation says: "10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

You said: "Sometimes loving someone means telling them things they will find painful "

So if loving someone sometimes means telling things that they will painful, then it is inaccurate to say that love does no harm to its neighbor. Unless, pain isn't a form of harm.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My NIV translation says: "10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

You said: "Sometimes loving someone means telling them things they will find painful "

So if loving someone sometimes means telling things that they will painful, then it is inaccurate to say that love does no harm to its neighbor. Unless, pain isn't a form of harm.

Pointing out that you are endangering your soul to someone and them getting upset about it because they don't want to hear it isn't a form of "harm". What matters more is the health of the soul. What, do you think that Christians are supposed to walk on eggshells around people? Jesus didn't and neither did the Apostles or all the early Saints. They were very bold, forthright people.

 

[columbus]

I'm not interested in what some atheist activist who twists science for ideological ends has to say about it.

In what way was science twisted here?
Tom

 

[dust1n]

Pointing out that you are endangering your soul to someone and them getting upset about it because they don't want to hear it isn't a form of "harm".

So pain doesn't cause harm and/or is not a form of harm?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So pain doesn't cause harm and/or is not a form of harm?

Put the verse in context.

"8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”a and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”b 10Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

It's just talking about acting right towards each other. To be charitable (i.e. to express neighborly love and to strive to be a just and good person). It's not talking about "oh, you made that person cry because you said they're doing wrong".

 

[dust1n]

Put the verse in context.

"8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”a and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”b 10Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

It's just talking about acting right towards each other. To be charitable (i.e. to express neighborly love and to strive to be a just and good person). It's not talking about "oh, you made that person cry because you said they're doing wrong".

I'm not sure how the context invalidates the line.

But I will assume that your position is in that one can cause emotional duress in the form of pain, without causing harm. Which is fine if so. Just needed clarification.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not sure how the context invalidates the line.

But I will assume that your position is in that one can cause emotional duress in the form of pain, without causing harm. Which is fine if so. Just needed clarification.

It's more a matter of reading too much into it and taking it out of context.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Therefore the texts aren't talking about homosexual acts. They're simply referring to acts that were considered to be "unnatural." That's clear to everyone but you, apparently.

Considered unnatural during a time when it was very widely believed sorcery is real, the stars can predict the future,

Yes, there is. Those with the genes that are more advantageous reproduce and pass them on and the ones who don't, don't reproduce and their lineage dies out. So the "purpose" of natural selection is to better enable the species to survive.

Theoretically that is how it works, but disadvantageous genes are passed on, advantageous ones aren't, and it goes every which-way. Those with beneficial traits are more likely to reproduce, and reproduce more often, which gives a higher chance of probability of those genes being passed on, but they aren't necessarily passed on. Natural selection simply describes the concept for how evolution works out "in nature," rather than other models such as selective/artificial selection.

 

[SomeRandom]

i've seen it many times...anyone who does not accept homosexuality is insulted with being old fashioned, unreasonable, homophobic, bigoted and a whole host of other demeaning things.

I don't mean to be insensitive to your plight, but it's kind of hard not to be quite offended by that comment. I mean during High School I had to call the School Chaplain and Nurse to talk my friend out of committing suicide due to the ANTI GAY bullying he received. More than once.
I can recall on numerous occasions hanging out with my gay friends, just doing normal teen antics and having to deal with "******!!" "You *** lover," "You should die, you're an abomination." Or having to call the police because they not only threatened to bash my friend for being gay, but did so brandishing weapons like bats or once a chain (very old school thug, I guess.) Hell just the other week my manager had to get a customer escorted out of the premises because she said and I quote "It's so disgusting that we have to put up with you abominations, even here." That was to a frightened but rather flamboyant teenager (who is not actually gay) trying to serve her. Though to be fair I suppose she seemed a bit drunk.

I'm not saying you did that, but saying you've been insulted by being called "old fashioned" (since when is that an insult?) by being called "unreasonable, homophobic and bigoted" (ummm yes? That's what you get for saying something that is homophobic) is kind of like the KKK or other racists being all like "oh you guys are so mean to us. Calling us bigots, racists and other demeaning things."
It might just be me having seen bullying, racism and homophobia that prevents me from sympathizing with people who are perfectly free to not only voice their opinion but are not interfered with by law (ie not having to live up to another person's standards of marriage within their own relationship, legally speaking) and generally don't have to fear for their damned life every time they walk down the bleeding road just for being themselves. Like it sucks for you having your feelings hurt and bullying is not okay. It just seems a little rich and.........dare I say, a very privileged thing to say. I mean, geez even I encounter worse just for going into work!

 

[sojourner]

I don't mean to be insensitive to your plight, but it's kind of hard not to be quite offended by that comment. I mean during High School I had to call the School Chaplain and Nurse to talk my friend out of committing suicide due to the ANTI GAY bullying he received. More than once.
I can recall on numerous occasions hanging out with my gay friends, just doing normal teen antics and having to deal with "******!!" "You *** lover," "You should die, you're an abomination." Or having to call the police because they not only threatened to bash my friend for being gay, but did so brandishing weapons like bats or once a chain (very old school thug, I guess.) Hell just the other week my manager had to get a customer escorted out of the premises because she said and I quote "It's so disgusting that we have to put up with you abominations, even here." That was to a frightened but rather flamboyant teenager (who is not actually gay) trying to serve her. Though to be fair I suppose she seemed a bit drunk.

I'm not saying you did that, but saying you've been insulted by being called "old fashioned" (since when is that an insult?) by being called "unreasonable, homophobic and bigoted" (ummm yes? That's what you get for saying something that is homophobic) is kind of like the KKK or other racists being all like "oh you guys are so mean to us. Calling us bigots, racists and other demeaning things."
It might just be me having seen bullying, racism and homophobia that prevents me from sympathizing with people who are perfectly free to not only voice their opinion but are not interfered with by law (ie not having to live up to another person's standards of marriage within their own relationship, legally speaking) and generally don't have to fear for their damned life every time they walk down the bleeding road just for being themselves. Like it sucks for you having your feelings hurt and bullying is not okay. It just seems a little rich and.........dare I say, a very privileged thing to say. I mean, geez even I encounter worse just for going into work!

This sounds an awful lot like a "First World Whine" to me. "We (the privileged ones) are being called names for voicing our opinion of those to whom we've given no voice! Waaaaaahhh!!"

 

[SomeRandom]

This sounds an awful lot like a "First World Whine" to me. "We (the privileged ones) are being called names for voicing our opinion of those to whom we've given no voice! Waaaaaahhh!!"

Right? Like ughh.