Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[gnostic]

Would this be Cambrian biota?

That’s very old news. I think biologists have learned far more in the last 40 years about the Cambrian Radiation than they did back then in the late 19th century, Hockeycowboy.

Why are creationists are so eager to dredge up what Darwin didn’t know?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A fast rooster might be so confident in its speed that it will take a chance eating the seeds where a fox often prowls. But a scared chicken might rather go hungry than take on the risk.

So which one has the better odds of survival? How many times did the chicken and the rooster see the fox? Is the rooster rally faster than the chicken? How many times has a biologist run this experiment with same individuals to get statistically significant results?

When the fox is distracted by having a sick kit how does this affect the odds? How many times does such an experiment need to be run?

Do you think nature will select for chicken or cockiness"?

Of course you believe it's all automatic and nature works its miracle without any concern for any specifics but this is the exact same miracle that God performs. Unlike nature He knows in advance who will live and who will die and He can affect the outcome. He can add the element of randomness at will while nature is at the mercy of scared or confident abstractions we call "poultry".

There is nothing "magical" about natural selection.

Natural selection is inevitable when you have systems that reproduce with variation and are in a struggle for survival.

 

[John53]

This Harvard.edu website states,

“Most of the time, this process [the transmission of genetic material] unfolds with remarkable accuracy, but when it goes awry, mutations can arise—some of them beneficial, some of them inconsequential, and some of them causing malfunction and disease.”

How misleading! (As if its about 1/3 for each category.)

When it goes awry, the vast majority (of mutations) cause malfunctions & disease, and rarely are any beneficial.

If the mutations are “inconsequential”, then there’s nothing awry!

Who wrote this, Doogie Howser?
And peer-reviewed by the Three Stooges?

Your qualifications allow you to insult the author?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your qualifications allow you to insult the author?

He did that, all by himself!

And, yeah. Yours don’t?

 

[John53]

He did that, all by himself!

And, yeah. Yours don’t?

No you did. Unless someone else is using your account.

Mine what don't do what?

 

[Audie]

Would this be Cambrian biota?

Depends on who misrepresents.

It could be "yapping at the heels".

Or your fav, "quip n scoot".

 

[cladking]

" metaphysics" is vapour

When I use the word I am usually intending the definition of "the basis of science". This definition is related to how and why science works at all.

The problem really is all those who believe in science rather than understanding it think science is a miracle employed by Peers to create technology.

There is no magic in science other than the magic we each perform when we come to understand something.

 

[cladking]

There is nothing "magical" about natural selection.

It certainly is magical if you can't show it, predict it, or observe it.

It is simply assumed that those which survive are fitter than those which do not. It is assumed before, during, and after the fact. This is not how science is done. It is metametaphysical. We can't do science this way or everyone could insert his own reason for the causation from it's "God's will" or "the most conscious survive". These things are not science and no experiment support them.

Natural selection is inevitable when you have systems that reproduce with variation and are in a struggle for survival.

Again you are assuming competition where observation supports cooperation but even if there were competition this would hardly support the contention that species change gradually as a result of the manifestation of survival of the fittest. You need proper experiment.

 

[shunyadragon]

This Harvard.edu website states,

“Most of the time, this process [the transmission of genetic material] unfolds with remarkable accuracy, but when it goes awry, mutations can arise—some of them beneficial, some of them inconsequential, and some of them causing malfunction and disease.”

How misleading! (As if its about 1/3 for each category.)

When it goes awry, the vast majority (of mutations) cause malfunctions & disease, and rarely are any beneficial.

If the mutations are “inconsequential”, then there’s nothing awry!

Who wrote this, Doogie Howser?
And peer-reviewed by the Three Stooges?

Itis false big time lier lier pants on fire tht the vaste majority of mutations cause malfunctions and disease,

 

[shunyadragon]

Good. I have to give you credit for that -- I'll be looking forward to seeing more as to what scientists say about this. Thank you.

Very, very simple. The claim of probability limiting or making evolution false is based on the assumption that the processes of evolution are random. The processes of evolution are not random. They are predictable processes based on Natural Laws.

 

[cladking]

I can not possibly emphasize this enough: Science requires experiment.

No experiment shows gradual change in species through survival of the fittest therefore it is not science. Rather all observation and every experiment shows all change in life is sudden and even the so called fossil record can be interpreted in these terms. There is evidence to suggest the fossil record is best interpreted in these terms. Every observed change in species has occurred suddenly.

I might further add that "fitness" has never been properly defined and is probably a meaningless term until such time as it has been. It is illogical to assume that nature wastes resources to make food for other species. It takes far more energy to make an egg than can be produced by using it as food. Every individual is on earth to thrive. Humans are exceedingly wasteful, nature and reality are not.

 

[Pogo]

Itis false big time lier lier pants on fire tht the vaste majority of mutations cause malfunctions and disease,

But it is a convenient way to dismiss the majority that are neutral besides that it doesn't matter if the reproduction rate is high enough.

 

[shunyadragon]

Good. I have to give you credit for that -- I'll be looking forward to seeing more as to what scientists say about this. Thank you.

Very, very simple. The claim of probability limiting or making evolution false is based on the assumption that the processes of evolution are random. The processes of evolution are not random. They are predictable processes based on Natural Laws.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This Harvard.edu website states,

“Most of the time, this process [the transmission of genetic material] unfolds with remarkable accuracy, but when it goes awry, mutations can arise—some of them beneficial, some of them inconsequential, and some of them causing malfunction and disease.”

How misleading! (As if its about 1/3 for each category.)

When it goes awry, the vast majority (of mutations) cause malfunctions & disease, and rarely are any beneficial.

If the mutations are “inconsequential”, then there’s nothing awry!

Who wrote this, Doogie Howser?
And peer-reviewed by the Three Stooges?

Hi, Hockeycowboy.

With bees, some are workers, some are drones, and some are queens. That statement doesn't imply that it's 1/3 each: "Honey bees are social insects that live in colonies. Honey bee colonies consist of a single queen, hundreds of male drones and 20,000 to 80,000 female worker bees."

And yes, there are inconsequential mutations. You seem surprised at the claim (you used an exclamation mark).

Who wrote this? Somebody who was correct.

Who peer reviewed it? That term refers to scientific research. The passage you cited might have been reviewed by nobody, or perhaps an editor.

 

[shunyadragon]

I can not possibly emphasize this enough: Science requires experiment.

True

No experiment shows gradual change in species through survival of the fittest therefore it is not science.

False, Intentional ignorance of science based on a ancient religious agenda,

The rest is meaningless and not worth responding to.

 

[Pogo]

When I use the word I am usually intending the definition of "the basis of science". This definition is related to how and why science works at all.

The problem really is all those who believe in science rather than understanding it think science is a miracle employed by Peers to create technology.

There is no magic in science other than the magic we each perform when we come to understand something.

Fruitful communication is not possible without a common language. The language used on this board is standard English, redefining words to suit yourself is both impolite and destructive of any purpose in posting you may have. If you want to assign a philosophical name to "the basis of science" it would be methodological naturalism. The study of causes and effects in the natural world, I.e. not including magic, gods, or anything in general considered supernatural. It is not that the supernatural can't be studied or believed in, it is just not science. It is also true that if you can demonstrate a supernatural effect, as with alternative medicine, it ceases to be alternative and becomes just medicine.

Metaphysics, whatever this amorphous term even means these days is not science, it has long since lost its connection to Aristotle. If anything, the word is an example of the danger of using alternate definitions of a word.

 

[Audie]

When I use the word I am usually intending the definition of "the basis of science". This definition is related to how and why science works at all.

The problem really is all those who believe in science rather than understanding it think science is a miracle employed by Peers to create technology.

There is no magic in science other than the magic we each perform when we come to understand something.

No magic in science! Who knew???

 

[Audie]

Itis false big time lier lier pants on fire tht the vaste majority of mutations cause malfunctions and disease,

Yes to quote your friends unintendrd
irony, " how (very very) misleading."

And there's more, so much more!
I especially appreciate the additional
data points for my theory, that it is impossible
to be a well informed and intellectually honest
creationist.

 

[cladking]

Fruitful communication is not possible without a common language. The language used on this board is standard English, redefining words to suit yourself is both impolite and destructive of any purpose in posting you may have. If you want to assign a philosophical name to "the basis of science" it would be methodological naturalism. The study of causes and effects in the natural world, I.e. not including magic, gods, or anything in general considered supernatural. It is not that the supernatural can't be studied or believed in, it is just not science. It is also true that if you can demonstrate a supernatural effect, as with alternative medicine, it ceases to be alternative and becomes just medicine.

Metaphysics, whatever this amorphous term even means these days is not science, it has long since lost its connection to Aristotle. If anything, the word is an example of the danger of using alternate definitions of a word.

I am defining "metaphysics" as the basis of science which is the very first definition in the unabridged dictionary from which I learned English. Obviously there are always other words but "methodological naturalism" is NOT what I mean. It assumes the existence of "natural laws" and I don't believe in natural laws so will continue to use the more precise word. I could also use "epistemology" but this word doesn't really fit either.

Try reading Burtt's "Metaphysics of Modern Science". It is the best work ever written on how and why science works. The subject is the basis of modern science.

Having a knee jerk reaction to not even being able to properly parse the word that means "basis of science" seems to be a characteristic of many who believe in science or practice scientism.

 

[Audie]

I can not possibly emphasize this enough: Science requires experiment.

No experiment shows gradual change in species through survival of the fittest therefore it is not science. Rather all observation and every experiment shows all change in life is sudden and even the so called fossil record can be interpreted in these terms. There is evidence to suggest the fossil record is best interpreted in these terms. Every observed change in species has occurred suddenly.

I might further add that "fitness" has never been properly defined and is probably a meaningless term until such time as it has been. It is illogical to assume that nature wastes resources to make food for other species. It takes far more energy to make an egg than can be produced by using it as food. Every individual is on earth to thrive. Humans are exceedingly wasteful, nature and reality are not.

You really should stop trying to give science lessons