Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I had a Jewish boyfriend at, Uni
Interestingly (and rather tellingly) @cladking has been told that (about rabbits/carrots) several times, right in this thread -- and yet he keeps repeating it. Does that say that he is either not reading what others write, or that he is incapable of or uninterested in learning? I'm sure it's one or the other.
This is simply untrue. There are multiple experiments in which scientists have predicted how organisms would respond to environmental pressures, set up the required experiments and let them run. And lo and behold, organisms did just what was predicted. Here are just two of them:
No, it's not a problem with ToE,
I understand that as a series of founder effects rather than the result of competition for scarce resources. It was no only a good example of speciation, but a rebuttal to the claim that speciation was only the result of niches changing.
Here's what I call the theory-in-crisis claim so often seen in critics of evolution. Cladking goes there as well. It's the implication that the scientists have taken a wrong term somewhere that has cost them, something that needs to be corrected. But they can never show us just what that problem is, what harm it is doing, or how whatever they recommend instead can help. You might think from their telling of the crisis that if one went to a symposium of experts, that they would be in a state of chaos and disorganization, perhaps wondering about their future in a science in such disrepair. Instead, we find consensus up until the most recent issues being decided, and progress continuing unimpeded. False alarm.
But it does. Others have explained. A theory has to be falsifiable to be called scientific. It has to make claims about the future that might be shown wrong. The theory predicts that that will never happen. The theory predicts that the results of animal testing can be valid for human beings. The theory predicts that viruses might mutate and vaccines become less effective.
Apart from that being technically incorrect, it's irrelevant to my comment, which is that *I* didn't use that phrase in my definition of adaptation which you misquoted by inserting that phrase into it for me.
Do you mean physically such as morphologically? Both occur with evolution. The gene pool changes and with it, structure and function.
Yet evolution remains gradual. The individual changes are discrete events as you suggest, coming in packets (individual births), but the process is cumulative over indefinite periods of time - billions of years already.
No. We are Homo sapiens.
Agree. They can be tautological if one uses the definiendum as the definiens, as with 'Truth (definiendum) - that which is actually true (definiendum).' But that didn't happen here, and that wouldn't be a circular argument since it isn't an argument.
It's not an argument. It's a definition.
Disagree. This is how bacterial resistance to antibiotics occurs. The survivors who then go on to reproduce and generate more copies of themselves have been naturally selected.
It cannot make the hard predictions of physics, that is true. But it does make predictions that have been used to further the science. For example Tiktaalik was found by applying the theory of evolution to paleontology. They used when it should have roughly first appeared and the environment that it would have lived in and it applied that to known geology and found a likely source for it. Since that time other transitional fossils have been found using the same methodology. Originally finding fossils used to be more due to happenstance. In the last thirty years there was a boom in finding transitional fossils by applying evolution to finding its own data.
That's a claim, not an argument. You had written, "scientists have taken a wrong term somewhere that has cost them, something that needs to be corrected. But they can never show us just what that problem is." Saying that this or that is a problem is just a claim until you can specifically identify a problem and demonstrate why you think it's a problem. Show where Darwin said what you claim he said. I'm hoping to eventually show you what it takes to convince so you'll stop making ineffectual comments.
Did you mean reject your unsupported claim again? Already done. This is the loop you're stuck in that I think you would appreciate being made aware of, but I need your cooperation to do that. You'll need to look at the suggestions and hopefully test them open-mindedly.
Not invisible. Ineffective.
OK. What is your position on that now? Mine is that biological evolution is a type of adaptation. They have a set-subset relationship.
That's not a useful definition. If Dahmer's cannibalism impulse was in part or whole genetic, then we can say that evolution experimented and produced a cannibal. That turned out to be maladaptive behavior in Dahmer's environment, behavior that led to his incarceration and then murder, and he was removed from the gene pool before leaving offspring. But he wasn't a new species.
It sounds like you have an interest in the neurology of speech. Broca's area is concerned with articulating speech. Strokes to this region don't impair understanding language, just the ability to speak, as if one had a stutter so bad that he couldn't express his thoughts to others. Wernicke's areas is concerned with comprehension. Strokes in this area result in words becoming meaningless sounds. In between comprehension and articulation is silent thought. Chomsky referred to neural circuits that facilitated language usage, but I don't believe he referred to specific brain areas.
Oe doesn't need language to think. My dogs think.
I don't know anybody who believes that.
Who are you describing? I frequently see things that I wasn't expecting, the evidence of which can change my mind.
I have no opinion on that other than I don't believe it was the source of linguistic diversity, but maybe such a tower was built, maybe not. I don't have any means to rule either possibility in or out. It doesn't matter if the story is based in an actual construction project or not
This has already been rebutted. It doesn't matter how quickly natural selection makes changes, it's still evolution by the definition of the word, which has no temporal aspect except that evolution occurs over time, whatever its rate. You didn't attempt to rebut that when it was presented, so I have no reason to change my position no matter how many times you repeat yourself if there is no attempt to falsify my position. And I remind you that falsify means more than just dissent with or without what you believe instead. Such responses do nothing toward resolution of differences in opinion as you might have noted. I'm hoping you'll eventually see the futility of that approach and change it.
The problem is that none of those things can be defined precisely enough to allow one to pick a moment of transition, such as the moment when baldness begin following natural balding. They are known as vague predicates for that reason. Go ahead and try to define human being in a way that would allow one to recognize which birth produced the first human being and that it's parent wasn't human. You can't. That's the paradox: Though human beings once didn't exist and now do, there was no first human.
Natural selection in this context is not referring to man selecting antibiotics, but to nature selecting which genomes survive them.
I must have missed it.
Google is fine, but I'm not motivated to go find the support for your claims.
You had said, "Since everything we see is consistent with what we believe we mistake this for omniscience." Then this only applied to the closed-minded?
I did when I left Christianity, but have no need to do so again. The model I have used for decades now has served me well.
I don't think I do. Do you have trouble understanding me?
There is as I and most others define it. In short, it's the ability to effect short-term goals, which means knowing what causes lead to what effects and how to make them occur.
Justified beliefs are helpful. We don't want to be immune from them. We should want to identify and collect them.
And Newton's on 17th century logic. Pythagoreas' theorems are based in 5th century BCE logic. We still benefit from them all.
How do you know when a mother who didn't act human produced a son or daughter who did? And I don't know what breeds true means.
What's your metric for determining which genes are human? What makes mom prehuman and sonny human?
Many human beings have been poisoned eating natural substances.
Ring species are great examples of speciation. Of course that fact won't have any impact on someone that believes nonsense is fact.
You are a much more patient person than I am. My level of tolerance for unsupported claims and wild, unsupported claims is much lower.
I like the contradiction that humans, with our sophisticated brains, didn't have a language until, poof, magically we did, but every other thing, even without brains has language.