Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Pogo]

It's not "my" position. Darwin himself wrote about his appreciation for the expression "survival of the fittest," writing about it in the 5th edition of his book The Origin.

And he recanted on his deathbed while you are making spurious accusations too.

 

[YoursTrue]

And he recanted on his deathbed while you are making spurious accusations too.

He did? Where are you getting that information from?

 

[YoursTrue]

And he recanted on his deathbed while you are making spurious accusations too.

What are you claiming Darwin recanted on his deathbed?

 

[leroy]

No, your alternative claims that there is something else that can explain it all but without any evidence or evidence of anything it couldn't explain. So what?

Ok but care to adress the claim made in the comment that you are quoting?

 

[leroy]

@leroy

Hi

How do you define naturalism?

Naturalism is the view that the natural world is all there is

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If one claims that an argument is wrong/fallacious/flawed etc., then that person is making a claim and therefore has a burden proof

Correct, yes. But if the argument is presented without meeting its burden, that argument can be dismissed without carrying a burden.

 

[Димитар]

Naturalism is the view that the natural world is all there is

Is that your definition?

That's more like a philosophical assumption..

 

[blü 2]

Naturalism is the view that the natural world is all there is

That seems fair. It's the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

There is of course a world of the mind, which if we're talking about the workings of your brain is part of the natural world as I see it, but if we're talking about my own brain seems unique to me, all I have. The brain can hold concepts of things that have no objective counterpart, like numbers, or Mickey Mouse, or ghosts or other supernatural beings, &c.

What else do you say there is, and on what credible basis do you say it?

 

[Valjean]

Can you back that up with reason? Breeders don't go by chance, do they? In any case, whether you agree or not that breeders don't breed by chance but by choice, can you please explain how that parallels natural selection per the process of mutation as delineated by those believing the theory of evolution?

Neither breeders nor nature go by chance. Both select; one intentionally and with a goal, the other unintentionally without a plan. Both rely on the same method of favored breeding success for the most fit, increasing the percentage of beneficial traits in the population.
Differential breeding works. It generates change in populations. When enough change accumulates speciation will occur. It doesn't matter whether the differential reproductive success is planned or natural.

 

[Valjean]

You basically said

Because Chemistry works therefore naturalism is true (or likely to be correct)


I just want to understand how did you arrive at that conclusion?.. this is not a trap . It's an honest question

Life appeared on a lifeless planet. Everyone agrees abiogenesis occurred.
Only two "mechanisms" have been proposed. One is evidenced, the other not.

Proposed:
Chemistry happens. Atoms and molecules come together and interact. Is that an acceptable premise?
When chemicals interact the results are predictable. Do you accept that?
Chemical interactions are observed to generate the components of life. The research is publically available.

Proposed:
There is an invisible, undetectable magician micromanaging the world.
He magically poofs various living things and species into and out of existence on a regular basis.

Which of these seems reasonable?
One is observable, productive, and of known mechanism. The other, unnecessary/extraneous, unevidenced, never observed, and without mechanism -- ie: magic.

 

[Valjean]

"I said a million times when oddballs are the only survivors of a bottleneck speciation occurs."

If the survivors are a random cross section of the population then there will be no change in species. In every way they are fundamentally different there will be fundamental differences in the new species. Other than accumulations of mutations (which might be influenced by consciousness as well), this is how most speciation occurs; suddenly. Most changes in life are sudden.

Where's the evidence of bottlenecks? How did the new species proliferate so extensively in such a short time? How is the evidence of gradualism disproved?

 

[Valjean]

You said that we are a product of consciousness.

We are no products.

We are living creatures.

Living creatures that were produced, somehow.
You prefer "created?" They are synonyms.

 

[Димитар]

Living creatures that were produced, somehow.
You prefer "created?" They are synonyms.

No , i prefer the term 'Living creatures that came into existence naturally.'

 

[blü 2]

He did? Where are you getting that information from?

As for what Darwin may have said on his deathbed or thereabouts, this link >Did Charles Darwin Renounce His Theory of Evolution on His Deathbed?< may provide some researched information.

 

[Valjean]

I think you owe us some explanation of just what this string of words means in your best attempt to communicate in our stinky footed post babbel language.

We truly are trying to understand your position and knowledge.

He's a mystic; a philosophical realist. He mixes a philosophical realism with phenomenology, confusing everyone. He believes objects like tables, chairs or planets are not independently real, but exist only in the mind of the observers.

 

[Valjean]

No , i prefer the term 'Living creatures that came into existence naturally.'

So why does "produced" exclude this? Is this a semantic argument?

 

[Димитар]

So why does "produced" exclude this? Is this a semantic argument?

I don't know how to answer this , honestly.

I will try.

You said 'created' which in Macedonian is translated as 'креирано'

Produced is 'продуцирано'

The term that i use in Macedonian is 'создадено' and its roots tell that it means it came into existence the natural way.

Yeah , it is probably because of meaning, you are correct.

We don't say Nature 'креира' fruits , but Nature 'создава' fruits.

I hope you can understand it.

I just want to use the best term.

 

[leroy]

What else do you say there is, and on what credible basis do you say it?

Well just to give a quick example

1 I think there are good reasons to think that the natural world had a begining and a cause..... (It probably started at the big bang)

2 if true then by definition the cause has to be non natural (, otherwise it wouldn't be the cause of the natural world)

 

[Димитар]

2 if true then by definition the cause has to be non natural (, otherwise it wouldn't be the cause of the natural world)

This suggest that light is non natural.
Because we see light when we see the Big Bang.

We as Christians believe that God is light.
You are suggesting that God is non-natural..

I don't see this to fit in Christian sense.

Correct me if i am wrong.

I am arguing this as a Christian , ofc.

You are a Christian , right?

 

[cladking]

No again, it is just your strawman misunderstanding, it is not about individuals and thus your beliefs and or disbeliefs are irrelevant to the actual subject

!!!!!!!!!!

Do you believe only the fittest species survive?