Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

Evidence that you don't understand evolutionary theory? You don't know yet that you don't?

Her post's are also consistent with a Trolling hypothesis.

 

[leroy]

They are only 2 of the 5 evolutionary mechanisms.

Genetic Drift, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking are the 3 mechanisms.

I would add non random mutations (or non random genetic variation) some of the known and well documented mechanisms are epigenetics natural genetic engineering transposons etc…….my bet is that many other mechanism like that, yet to be discovered ,and that they play a major role in evolution

I have noticed that you seem have the tendency to ignore the subject on Genetic Drift when it is brought up.

I don’t think genetic drift is a relevant mechanism but who knows maybe I am wrong...(I dont hold this view in a strong way]
)..........Sure this mechanism explains why some people have blue eyes--------- but I don’t think is relevant in explaining the origin of the eye

Plus, Mutations are necessary for Natural Selection to occur, but you often bring them together, even though they are 2 completely different mechanisms.

Granted, but the magic occurs when they work together……….but yes they are independent mechanisms you can have one without the other

Mutations can occur among individual organisms, but whether these mutated genes are inherited by the next generations, may or may not happen, and in those cases when mutations are not inherited, then there are no evolutionary change via mutations.

Natural Selection, on the hand, isn't random, because the driving forces for evolutionary changes is caused by changes to the environment.

Environmental changes could be changes to the terrain, or to the climate, or changes to the availability of resources (eg drought or famine), etc, so when an environment have changed, it put selective pressures upon populations of species, to either be adaptable to changes or risk reduction in reproductive successes that could cause drop in population growths, or even extinction to certain species.

Mutations are not always responsible for selective changes, so I don’t think you really understand what you are talking about. Natural Selection and Mutations don’t always occur together, especially as they are 2 different mechanisms.

no disagreement I apologize and admit my mistake if I ever sound as if i would disagree with that

 

[Pogo]

I am defining "Experiment" is a microcosm of reality as devised by others and "Experience" as muscle memory, direct observation, and direct learning with reality as feedback. I believe all true knowledge is experience this is why I have repeated some of others experiments for myself; to make them experience.

That is nice and fine if you are talking to yourself, but you are not and those definitions are very different than anyone else here is using. The language on this board is standard English with its associated definitions, if you would create an auto translate for your language there might be a lot less confusion.

 

[leroy]

because no biologists used Lamarkinian Evolution or Lamarkinian Inheritance in the last hundred years.

Lamarkinism is not active taught at any universities, anywhere around the world, today.

Do you not understand that?

Granted and I never said the opposite

Leroy.

Are you or haven’t you been a working biologist, or some other jobs that are related fields in biology?

Do you have the qualification(s) or ever being educated in some biological fields at tertiary level (eg bachelor, master, PhD, any university- or college- level qualification)?

no

i would leave things to the experts in genetics and molecular biology, as these 2 areas work closely with evolutionary biology, as I am novice in biology, like you.

Sure you won’t find a claim made by me, that is not supported by the majority (or at least a relevant number) of experts…………sometimes I have opinions that differ from experts, but I usually try to be very explicit that it is just my opinion

Even I did ask you the questions about experiences & qualifications, I don’t think you ever worked as biologist, or medical doctor or paleontologist. You have made too many errors in the past, so clearly you didn’t study much in biology.

Care to quote an error? Sure sometimes I make errors, but I always recognized them as such

 

[Pogo]

Someone else here pointed out that the term creationism really cannot be properly applied to all who believe in a higher source that has intelligence over and beyond the creation. But that is not what I'm here to necessarily discuss.
So I have a question of you and possibly some others, do you believe that all changes of a particular species are due to random mutations?

So you object to gross generalizations and then ask us to agree with one.

 

[Pogo]

Remains me to the LGBTQ+ community……………..you have more names than people,,,, but that is ok, I will stick to your definitions. I don’t care

Will you ever answer my question…………

¿do you think that one view (atheism or theism) is more likely to be true than the other?.........will you ever answer this question?

Not until you actually learn the meanings of the words you use, prior to that, any answer will be, at best, misunderstood by you.

 

[cladking]

Unlike Darwin I won't jump to conclusions like God created consciousness or even that God is conscious. I won't jump to the conclusion that God or Gods exist at all.

These would be the kind of miracles in which scientists might believe.

The language on this board is standard English with its associated definitions, if you would create an auto translate for your language there might be a lot less confusion.

Utter nonsense!!!

I am using standard English with standard definitions and you play word games by refusing to parse them as intended.

You might end up on my ignore list as word games is what gets people there.

The highest form of any modern language is to specifically state which definitions of words you are selecting. If you refuse to parse words correctly after I define them then I'd invite you not to respond at all. Of course I'd welcome any input into the definitions I select from an unabridged dictionary, I do not select words to suit your beliefs in miracles. I am well aware that most people don't appreciate the importance of experiment in the development of theory so this would be a legitimate topic of discussion. Refusing to parse the word as I intend is on you.

 

[leroy]

You should have learned the major mechanisms in high school biology. I assumed they were common knowledge -- till I began posting on RF. Mechanisms of Evolution | Biological Principles

So by what mechanism do they occur?

So by what mechanism do they occur?

I don’t know and nether do you……..my best bet is that it happens by a wide number of mechanisms including

1 those mentioned in your source

2 non random mutations (epigenetics, natural genetic engineering, transposons, etc.)

3 other mechanism yet to be discovered (in my opinion it is naïve to think that we know “everything” about DNA)

If you don’t reply with “no Leroy I disagree only number “1” in the list is relevant” I will assume that you agree with me and I will end the discussion

 

[leroy]

Not until you actually learn the meanings of the words you use, prior to that, any answer will be, at best, misunderstood by you.

Sounds like a dishonest and pathetic excuse for not answering my question.

All words have many definitions and definitions are subjective………….I am not wrong, just because I didn’t used your favorite definition of some words……….but as I told you before, who cares , for the purpose of this conversation I have no problem in sticking with your definitions

Will you ever answer my question?

Do you affirm that given the evidence, one view (atheism or theism) is more likely to be true than the other?

Why are you afraid of answering this question?

 

[Pogo]

These would be the kind of miracles in which scientists might believe.


Utter nonsense!!!

I am using standard English with standard definitions and you play word games by refusing to parse them as intended.

You might end up on my ignore list as word games is what gets people there.

The highest form of any modern language is to specifically state which definitions of words you are selecting. If you refuse to parse words correctly after I define them then I'd invite you not to respond at all. Of course I'd welcome any input into the definitions I select from an unabridged dictionary, I do not select words to suit your beliefs in miracles. I am well aware that most people don't appreciate the importance of experiment in the development of theory so this would be a legitimate topic of discussion. Refusing to parse the word as I intend is on you.

Your words are, but as the discussion has shown re bottleneck, your definitions bear little resemblance to the definitions used by any of us familiar with the generally accepted definitions. Stating that white is the lack of reflected light and expecting us to accept this whenever we read your statements is not reasonable and not going to happen.

 

[Pogo]

Sounds like a dishonest and pathetic excuse for not answering my question.

All words have many definitions and definitions are subjective………….I am not wrong, just because I didn’t used your favorite definition of some words……….but as I told you before, who cares , for the purpose of this conversation I have no problem in sticking with your definitions

Will you ever answer my question?

Do you affirm that given the evidence, one view (atheism or theism) is more likely to be true than the other?

Why are you afraid of answering this question?

Not afraid at all, just tired of wasting time as are many with your logic and comprehension failures.

 

[leroy]

It’s Natural Selection, not Mutations that eyes have evolved.

And they evolved because there are light. Light provides animals with the awareness of shapes, size and colours, through complex nervous organs, which provide feedback to the brains.

Did you know that the major of animals that inhabited the bottom of very ocean floors or oceanic trenches, where no light reached these creatures? The majority of those marine organisms are eyeless that inhabit in total darkness.

New Zealand used to have no humans or other natural predators on these islands, so birds like the kiwis didn’t require to flee from predators, so not only lost the their abilities to fly, their wings have become vestigial. When humans came, bringing other animals on to the islands, their population have dwindled dramatically.

No disagreement………….

 

[cladking]

Your words are, but as the discussion has shown re bottleneck, your definitions bear little resemblance to the definitions used by any of us familiar with the generally accepted definitions.

I refuse to discuss this further after this post.

There IS NO GENERALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION FOR ANY WORD. Every word has numerous definitions as seen in any dictionary and everyone including yourself uses almost all of them.

I would suggest you consult a dictionary but in the meantime you will end up on my ignore list if you refuse to use the definition I delineate.

 

[leroy]

Not afraid at all, just tired of wasting time as are many with your logic and comprehension failures.

Really, you had the energy to write 3 or 4 comments “correcting” me on semantic issues , but you don’t have the energy for answering a YES or NO question?

Even this post I am responding to requires more energy than answering my question


Stop inventing excuses and answer the question

 

[leroy]

I have no problems understanding it.

yes you do

You're the one who's having problems understanding your false analogy.

When you are talking about a cause for space-time, then invoking another "computer" to explain the origins of the "first" computer, is exactly what you are doing.

To invoke causality is to invoke temporal conditions. The very thing you are supposedly trying to explain.

That would be an other objection………you are changing the topic.

First agree (or refute) the point that I made and then we can move on to this other topic………….in fact first explain with your own words my point………if you don’t prove to me that you understand you will be ignored

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your words are, but as the discussion has shown re bottleneck, your definitions bear little resemblance to the definitions used by any of us familiar with the generally accepted definitions. Stating that white is the lack of reflected light and expecting us to accept this whenever we read your statements is not reasonable and not going to happen.

I find it amusing to see complaints that others repeat beliefs sans evidence coming from sources that repeat their beliefs ad nauseum without ever providing any evidence.

I think we all understand the language and words at a more than sufficient level to readily see the existence of that bold dichotomy and irony that gushes forth from it.

The emperor clearly cannot see his own nudity while complaining that others need to throw on clothes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no evidence that speciation is driven by or the result of consciousness or any change in consciousness. No evidence supports the belief that consciousness (internal to the organisms involved or externally from from an unknown source) is a required component of speciation.

 

[B-psychedelic]

Hmm, maybe you are new here, but creationists are a subset of Christians who insist on a silly literal interpretation of Genesis. We designate them as such to differentiate them from the majority of Christians who understand reality..

Now you know.

It seems you should get your glasses.
1. I never said I didn't know what it meant by creationist but rather said using the right method of approach in terms of writing style will realize not every portion of the Bible is in the Literal Sense and therefore, I don't answer to that name you guys try to impose on all of us (Christians).
That has been my stands from the beginning But it seems that, some of you are just here to criticize but cannot stomach one.
So now you know, next time read carefully and know whose submission you're responding to.

 

[Pogo]

I find it amusing to see complaints that others repeat beliefs sans evidence coming from sources that repeat their beliefs ad nauseum without ever providing any evidence.

I think we all understand the language and words at a more than sufficient level to readily see the existence of that bold dichotomy and irony that gushes forth from it.

The emperor clearly cannot see his own nudity while complaining that others need to throw on clothes.

The intellectual nudity is always around, the bigger question these days seems to be the number of children vs. adults.

 

[leroy]

By definition of the words "cause" and "effects".

Really, so I am wrong, just because I am not using your own personal favorite defections?


To say that the cause always and necessarily comes before the effect ….is far from uncontroversial……………you need more than ”because I say so”

If the universe (all physical reality) didn’t had a cause………..what other alternative do you suggest?