Evolution: Just A Reminder *sigh*

[leroy]

.

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE IS NOT CONCERNED WITH FIRST CAUSE

IT . . . DOESN'T . . . CARE!

​

The science of biological evolution only concerns itself with change. How an organism changes from one form into another, whether the change is large or small.

" Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."
Source: Wikipedia

​

Note, there is no mention of first cause, be it the hand of a god, abiogenesis, panspermia, chance, or Santa's elves. So, if you want to appear at least moderately well informed don't bringing it up and waste anyone's time.

.

.

ok

It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."

ok so where it the evidence for that?, can you show a single peer reviewd article that concludes that the statement is true beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[ecco]

Well, you have to define your terms, but we know red light exists in nature (since light of the appropriate wavelengths can be shown to exist).

We know that electromagnetic radiation sometimes travels in waves. We know that some of these wavelengths are visible to human eyes. We have chosen to refer to a small group of these as "red".

Alpha-Centaurians might not agree that "red" light exists.

How they identify their brothel districts is another question entirely.

 

[Polymath257]

We know that electromagnetic radiation sometimes travels in waves. We know that some of these wavelengths are visible to human eyes. We have chosen to refer to a small group of these as "red".

Alpha-Centaurians might not agree that "red" light exists.

How they identify their brothel districts is another question entirely.

Alpha-Centaurians would agree that electromagnetic waves of the appropriate wavelength exist. And that is the case even if they can't see them at all.

For all I know, they would see exclusively in the infrared and have no overlap in their 'visible' range as ours. We can also agree that infrared light exists even though we can't see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Alpha-Centaurians would agree that electromagnetic waves of the appropriate wavelength exist. And that is the case even if they can't see them at all.

For all I know, they would see exclusively in the infrared and have no overlap in their 'visible' range as ours. We can also agree that infrared light exists even though we can't see it.

You dodged all of the important questions. Where are these Alpha Centaurian brothel districts? What color or other reference do we use for them. How much will it set one back? And what precautions are necessary?

 

[osgart]

The concept that faeries created anything is obviously nonsense.

THE ONE TRUE GOD created everything Last Thursday.

I challenge anyone to provide the slightest shred of evidence showing I am wrong. Osgart, that includes you.

I don't believe in faeres. Intelligence in nature is a natural process, nothing supernatural. The source of it is bound by nature and influences nature through it's code.

I was never against the free flow of thought.

Obviously you are all vehement about dispelling the serious consideration that intelligence has always been a part of nature. And you are all vehement about those who have that conviction, even scientists who have this conviction.

I'm not sure being forceful is the way to go about it. There are plenty of productive scientists in all ages that hold this conviction. I live in a free society.

If memory serves me correctly, then I am able to know that we were not created by God last Thursday.

I would be glad to read any information refuting my conviction. I like to have the time to do it. I am particularly interested in experiments that display functionality through natural processes.

My definition of intelligence in nature is a that a force in nature has always existed and produces life. It could be a non living intelligence that has intentionality. I can't grasp how the source would exist. Panpsychism perhaps.

 

[Astrophile]

Alpha-Centaurians would agree that electromagnetic waves of the appropriate wavelength exist. And that is the case even if they can't see them at all.

For all I know, they would see exclusively in the infrared and have no overlap in their 'visible' range as ours. We can also agree that infrared light exists even though we can't see it.

Both components of the binary star alpha Centauri are Sun-like stars (spectral types G2 V and K1 V), and they emit most of their radiation in the 'visible' region of the spectrum (between about 400 and 800 nm). It would therefore be reasonable for alpha Centaurians to evolve eyes that were sensitive to light of this range of 'visible' wavelengths.

Proxima Centauri (an M-type dwarf) does emit most of its radiation in the near-infrared, so its inhabitants would be more likely to see exclusively infrared light.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe in faeres. Intelligence in nature is a natural process, nothing supernatural. The source of it is bound by nature and influences nature through it's code.

I was never against the free flow of thought.

Obviously you are all vehement about dispelling the serious consideration that intelligence has always been a part of nature. And you are all vehement about those who have that conviction, even scientists who have this conviction.

I'm not sure being forceful is the way to go about it. There are plenty of productive scientists in all ages that hold this conviction. I live in a free society.

If memory serves me correctly, then I am able to know that we were not created by God last Thursday.

I would be glad to read any information refuting my conviction. I like to have the time to do it. I am particularly interested in experiments that display functionality through natural processes.

My definition of intelligence in nature is a that a force in nature has always existed and produces life. It could be a non living intelligence that has intentionality. I can't grasp how the source would exist. Panpsychism perhaps.

Or perhaps just the laws of nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Both components of the binary star alpha Centauri are Sun-like stars (spectral types G2 V and K1 V), and they emit most of their radiation in the 'visible' region of the spectrum (between about 400 and 800 nm). It would therefore be reasonable for alpha Centaurians to evolve eyes that were sensitive to light of this range of 'visible' wavelengths.

Proxima Centauri (an M-type dwarf) does emit most of its radiation in the near-infrared, so its inhabitants would be more likely to see exclusively infrared light.

I have heard that binary stars do not have an environment conducive to planet formation. Is that correct? If that is the case then the whole red light district question is moot.

 

[Polymath257]

Both components of the binary star alpha Centauri are Sun-like stars (spectral types G2 V and K1 V), and they emit most of their radiation in the 'visible' region of the spectrum (between about 400 and 800 nm). It would therefore be reasonable for alpha Centaurians to evolve eyes that were sensitive to light of this range of 'visible' wavelengths.

Proxima Centauri (an M-type dwarf) does emit most of its radiation in the near-infrared, so its inhabitants would be more likely to see exclusively infrared light.

Fair enough. But we also don't know if they have different color receptors than we do, or more of them, and perhaps an extended range. Maybe they see several colors in the range where we see 'red'.

What if they label their brothels by one color we see as red and their religious building by another color we don't distinguish from the first?

 

[Polymath257]

I don't believe in faeres. Intelligence in nature is a natural process, nothing supernatural. The source of it is bound by nature and influences nature through it's code.

I was never against the free flow of thought.

Obviously you are all vehement about dispelling the serious consideration that intelligence has always been a part of nature. And you are all vehement about those who have that conviction, even scientists who have this conviction.

I'm not sure being forceful is the way to go about it. There are plenty of productive scientists in all ages that hold this conviction. I live in a free society.

If memory serves me correctly, then I am able to know that we were not created by God last Thursday.

I would be glad to read any information refuting my conviction. I like to have the time to do it. I am particularly interested in experiments that display functionality through natural processes.

My definition of intelligence in nature is a that a force in nature has always existed and produces life. It could be a non living intelligence that has intentionality. I can't grasp how the source would exist. Panpsychism perhaps.

Or it could just be the action of the electromagnetic force on the available molecules?

 

[Valjean]

ok so where it the evidence for that?, can you show a single peer reviewd article that concludes that the statement is true beyond reasonable doubt?

Are you actually asking if there's evidence that evolution creates biodiversity?

 

[leroy]

Are you actually asking if there's evidence that evolution creates biodiversity?

I am asking, if there are any PR articles that conclude/show that evolution (as defined in the first post) is true beyond reasonable doubt......

 

[Valjean]

I am asking, if there are any PR articles that conclude/show that evolution (as defined in the first post) is true beyond reasonable doubt......

Yes, yes there are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am asking, if there are any PR articles that conclude/show that evolution (as defined in the first post) is true beyond reasonable doubt......

This is a rather strange question. With millions of pieces of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution and none supporting other beliefs one needs to ask why would anyone accept anything else?

 

[Valjean]

Does anyone have any actual evidence that sand occurs on beaches, beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[WalterTrull]

So there is no mechanism, and life has always been here?

Well... "always" has to do with perception, as does "mechanism".
Our father is in heaven. Perception appears to be rather individual though. I do wish I understood the nature of "individual".

 

[WalterTrull]

This is a rather strange question. With millions of pieces of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution and none supporting other beliefs one needs to ask why would anyone accept anything else?

Have you ever noticed how most scientific evidence seems to be begging the question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you ever noticed how most scientific evidence seems to be begging the question?

No, how would you show that? Do you understand what scientific evidence is in the first place?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Alpha-Centaurians would agree that electromagnetic waves of the appropriate wavelength exist. And that is the case even if they can't see them at all.

For all I know, they would see exclusively in the infrared and have no overlap in their 'visible' range as ours. We can also agree that infrared light exists even though we can't see it.

So, an Infrared light District.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not the kind of function I am talking about. Specific, sophisticated, and efficient function is the kind I am talking about.

A rock paperweight is specific and efficient in that function. Sophistication is not a requirement in the designs of human intelligence and I see no reason it is necessary to show intelligence. Some of the best designs are the simplest and some of the worst are overdone and complicated.