Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

I can't imagine those ideologically opposed to science would ever admit or acknowledge facts that support science they deny.

Interesting. I've heard of decisions like that before. It's part of the "Great Moment in" series of what the heck.

what happened to mindlessness in evolution? How many fishes would it take to get to the next step in the evolutionary process leading to the "Unknown Common Ancestor" of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans? A whole school of fish? or maybe just a few...

 

[YoursTrue]

I wonder if certain parties will acknowledge that it's a random mutation?

It was in company with a female so there might be a chance it will breed. I'm interested if there might be some benefit of the colouring (camouflage from predators, attractiveness to potential mates) and the colouring continues. I suggest we meet back here in 500 years and discuss our findings. The only problem is the local council is trying to get the land rezoned and want to put a caravan park in, they're trying to sell the idea as ecotourism which I find a little ironic... let's chop down all the trees in the name of ecotourism.

Why wouldn't it be random mutation?

 

[YoursTrue]

It would be nice to explain what is really meant when someone says to consiider those who are "ideologically opposed to science?? By the way, for such who are educated in the theory of evolution and who claim to be somewhat religious why not go another mile figuratively speaking of course and let readers know if there is a possibility in their minds that God can resurrect those who have died?

 

[John53]

Why wouldn't it be random mutation?

What, mindless? Not driven by an intelligent overlord? Surely some God or other created that Rosella with more red.

Anyway, I didn't mean you, I was referring to the person who called someone pathetic for mentioning random mutations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would be nice to explain what is really meant when someone says to consiider those who are "ideologically opposed to science??

In the case of evolution those people tend to be creationists. But since the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming they cannot afford to even learn the basics of science They have to pretend to know what they clearly do not know. The problem for them is that evolution goes against their religious beliefs, even though it usually does not refute the important parts of their beliefs. It only refutes the most immoral parts of their beliefs.

By the way, for such who are educated in the theory of evolution, why not go another mile figuratively speaking of course and readers to know know if there is a possibility God can resurrect those who have died?

We do not even know if God is a possibility. You are always bemoaning "speculation" and that would be the utmost in speculation. You should take comfort in the fact that the sciences do not even attempt to refute it. But you might note that there is also not any reliable evidence for it. That does not make it false, but it does point out that the belief is questionable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What, mindless? Not driven by an intelligent overlord? Surely some God or other created that Rosella with more red.

Anyway, I didn't mean you, I was referring to the person who called someone pathetic for mentioning random mutations.

What is this talk of mindlessness?

I wasn't sure who you were referring to, but I bet I could guess and have a good chance of being correct. The real point though is that mutations are essentially random in that they do not occur in some plan to address future need or that a specific mutation is unpredictable.

 

[John53]

What is this talk of mindlessness?

I wasn't sure who you were referring to, but I bet I could guess and have a good chance of being correct. The real point though is that mutations are essentially random in that they do not occur in some plan to address future need or that a specific mutation is unpredictable.

I give YOU one guess... TRUELY

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What, mindless? Not driven by an intelligent overlord? Surely some God or other created that Rosella with more red.

Anyway, I didn't mean you, I was referring to the person who called someone pathetic for mentioning random mutations.

Mutations are interesting phenomena in themselves. Two different mutations can evolve the same trait driven by the same selection in an example of convergent evolution. It's like that for lactose persistence in humans. There are two different populations of people that can effectively digest lactose into adulthood. While those populations share the trait, the genetic basis is different for each.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I give YOU one guess... TRUELY

I can't see them, but I think I would get it in one try.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I give YOU one guess... TRUELY

What specifically is being referred to as mindless? I'll leave out any any attempts at speculation.

 

[YoursTrue]

What, mindless? Not driven by an intelligent overlord? Surely some God or other created that Rosella with more red.

Anyway, I didn't mean you, I was referring to the person who called someone pathetic for mentioning random mutations.

I see. So random mutations do not drive evolution insofar as the theory goes?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok. I'm going by the Bible and the existence of the first man, Adam. His body was created first, then life was given him. That's for starters.

This negates any of your posts in this thread and others because your unfounded assertions are based on an ancient religious agenda without science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Would the learned ones here say that the process of evolution is driven by intelligent design? If not, it's mindless. No intelligence behind it. Just happened by chance. That shouldn't be hard to understand unless of course one wants to philosophize about it. not quite like Spinoza and Eingstein, but similar. It shouldn't be so hard to understand the concept -- evolution in the classical sense is mindless. No intelligence behind the transforming of matter (considered evolution).

 

[John53]

I see. So random mutations do not drive evolution insofar as the theory goes?

I don't think you understand the purpose of a question mark.

 

[YoursTrue]

What, mindless? Not driven by an intelligent overlord? Surely some God or other created that Rosella with more red.

Anyway, I didn't mean you, I was referring to the person who called someone pathetic for mentioning random mutations.

So then -- let's go by your viewpoint if you were being honest since you say that "some God' etc. created that beutiful color. Do you believe that?

 

[John53]

So then -- let's go by your viewpoint if you were being honest since you say that "some God' etc. created that beutiful color. Do you believe that?

No. Random mutation.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think you understand the purpose of a question mark.

Usually when I use a question mark I'm asking "do you believe that"?

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Random mutation.

OK, and I think at this point I can agree with that. But I don't know. for sure. So because I don't know I won't go any further.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is this talk of mindlessness?

I wasn't sure who you were referring to, but I bet I could guess and have a good chance of being correct. The real point though is that mutations are essentially random in that they do not occur in some plan to address future need or that a specific mutation is unpredictable.

That is the theory. The theory was devised by man. Theoretically though, evolution is mindless. There is no purpose. It just happens when a mutation occurs that is self-sustaining, is that right? In other words, conveniently reproduces with differences, enabling a different mode of existence, like from water dwelling fish to land dwellers. How many fish do you figure would have to have these so-called random mutations that cause a water-dweller to become a land dweller?

 

[John53]

Usually when I use a question mark I'm asking "do you believe that"?

When I use a ? I'm asking a question. I believe that is the standard use.