Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[John53]

I think I got another threat of damnation from those claiming to be Christian. It seems like it was a threat. Though it also seems that it was veiled.

Well you are enemy #1. You've only got yourself to blame for being honest.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do realise scientists publish their results, explain their findings,, show their evidence etc ? There is no need to blindly believe a scientific finding.

I understand your thinking on the issue. We go back to expert testimony in a trial. If I don't know something for sure, I'm not going to cast a vote on it, and -- I tell the judge that in advance so I don't cause a hung jury.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well you are enemy #1. You've only got yourself to blame for being honest.

Not sure what type of damnation was placed...good to be "clear" about these things...right?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think I got another threat of damnation from those claiming to be Christian. It seems like it was a threat. Though it also seems that it was veiled.

Do you claim to be Christian?

 

[YoursTrue]

You prefer the certainties like 1918, 1925 and 1975?

I prefer knowing that when Jesus prayed that God's will be done on the earth and spoke of the kingdom of God he knew and meant what he was saying. And I believe what he said. Unlike some who -- oh never mind.

 

[John53]

Do you claim to be Christian?

How many times do you want him to answer that? What is it about Dan and his beliefs that make you launch regular attacks?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think I got another threat of damnation from those claiming to be Christian. It seems like it was a threat. Though it also seems that it was veiled.

claiming to be Christian? Sounds like you don't think they are Christian. How interesting...there's always the question of infant baptism and baptism by choice which is now a bit of a struggle in some states trying to push "Bible" education in the public school system.

 

[YoursTrue]

How many times do you want him to answer that? What is it about Dan and his beliefs that make you launch regular attacks?

Perhaps his snide snickers about others along with a few others hand in hand, and lack of support for his belief as a "Christian." Hi, Dan...do you have any posts of yours that you can refer to as to WHY you believe in God along with the theory of evolution? maybe I just didn't read them -- nothing personal, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

How many times do you want him to answer that? What is it about Dan and his beliefs that make you launch regular attacks?

Just wondering if Dan has posted any reasons as to why he claims to be a Christian.

 

[YoursTrue]

How many times do you want him to answer that? What is it about Dan and his beliefs that make you launch regular attacks?

Why don't you let Dan say why he says he's a Christian and believes in God? Dan?

 

[John53]

Perhaps his snide snickers about others along with a few others hand in hand, and lack of support for his belief as a "Christian." Hi, Dan...do you have any posts of yours that you can refer to as to WHY you believe in God along with the theory of evolution? maybe I just didn't read them -- nothing personal, of course.

Oh it's personal, you've made that abundantly clear. Your behaviour is disgraceful.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh it's personal, you've made that abundantly clear. Your behaviour is disgraceful.

Nope. You are making it personal because -- you seem to be hand in hand with Dan's lack of desire to respond and snicker as if you don't notice it? While I feel sorry for you (and Dan), I thank you for your silly and shameful responses.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How many times do you want him to answer that? What is it about Dan and his beliefs that make you launch regular attacks?

Oh it's personal, you've made that abundantly clear. Your behaviour is disgraceful.

I think that is exactly what it is. As a Christian, I forgive such behavior. As a person I find that sort of response unfortunately typical and abhorrent at the same time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh it's personal, you've made that abundantly clear. Your behaviour is disgraceful.

In all the time since childhood, no one ever explained to me that I had to justify my faith to the Jehovah's Witnesses in order to determine if was a true Christian or not. I've never read that in the Bible and I wonder how they seem to have come to believe they are the judges of other Christians and know who is and who isn't. It seems that it is "Judge not, lest ye be Jehovah's Witnesses".

The sect seems to emphasize that anyone not them isn't Christian and they don't seem to have any qualms about mistreating those "not them" either from my personal experience and observation of other interactions.

 

[gnostic]

I imagine a mathematical system that can show the odds of mating between every two individuals of a species. Where the odds are low for a large number of individuals this is a sort of "functional bottleneck" ie- everyone else may as well be dead. Don't forget that under normal conditions the odds of any two oddballs mating is very low because even oddball females are likely to select healthy typical mates. Forces tend to keep changes to a minimum so long as there are no severe stressors on population. So as populations go up and down more diversity arises and oddball genes arise at localized bottlenecks. It is extreme population variances that give rise to change but more importantly these variations increase the odds of speciation if a global bottleneck arises: The more diverse the genome the higher the probability that a few individuals will survive an event that reduces the population. The fewer the individual which survive and the more odd the behavior that saved them the bigger the change in the species.

Here we are again. Is there any real basis for concluding that you are onto something here by noting a minor similarity between a population bottleneck and artificial selection to the point we can ignore all the differences that are significant?

The best evidence is in the big picture and the big picture says the people had to have some theory to create agriculture just as bees have to have some theory to do the waggle dance and invent hives. Perhaps this big picture is what is seen by other species rather than seeing only what they believe and can be used to form the basis of experiment. Our reductionistic science always demands an experiment to underlie theory but the big picture science only requires the ability to make out the picture from the information known, how else can a male cardinal know to stabilize a stalk on which it's mate is feeding? By the same means termites created cities and humans created agriculture.

What does any of that (wrt agriculture) to do with Dan’s post?

Dan addressed your points in regarding to you about species and populations bottlenecks, but instead of addressing his point, you have jumped to completely different subject, on agriculture, which have nothing to do with bottlenecks, nor with speciation.

While the introduction of agriculture coincided with the end of the Pleistocene & the glacial period (Ice Ages), and start of Holocene & the Neolithic sedentary life (eg villages, towns, etc) and farming (agriculture & animal domestication) lifestyle, not every populations adopted this way of living. There were still large numbers of populations that continued the nomadic life - following wild games, from water source to water source, and hunting-and-gathering - still continued, for generations and millennia.

The point is that humans that hunt and humans that farm, were all still of the same species, that of the Homo sapiens.

Even when they started urban life style, started using metals for tools & weapons, or started writing systems, none of that changed them as species - they were still anatomically & biologically, of Homo sapiens.

Your “Homo Omnisciensis”, is just your made up words that no one else used, is nothing more than senseless & pointless conspiracy theory. There are no such thing, not in science, and not in philosophy…this Homo Omnisciensis does even exist in metaphysics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What does any of that (wrt agriculture) to do with Dan’s post?

Dan addressed your points in regarding to you about species and pop bottlenecks, but instead of addressing his point, you have jumped to completely different subject, on agriculture, which have nothing to do with bottlenecks, nor with speciation.

While the introduction of agriculture coincided with the end of the Pleistocene & the glacial period (Ice Ages), and start of Holocene & the Neolithic sedentary life (eg villages, towns, etc) and farming (agriculture & animal domestication) lifestyle, not every populations adopted this way of living. There were still large numbers of populations that continued the nomadic life - following wild games, from water source to water source, and hunting-and-gathering - still continued, for generations and millennia.

The point is that humans that hunt and humans that farm, were all still of the same species, that of the Homo sapiens.

Even when they started urban life style, started using metals for tools & weapons, or started writing systems, none of that changed them as species - they were still anatomically & biologically, of Homo sapiens.

Your “Homo Omnisciensis”, is just your made up words that no one else used, is nothing more than senseless & pointless conspiracy theory. There are no such thing, not in science, and not in philosophy…this Homo Omnisciensis does even exist in metaphysics.

Thanks.

What you say is supported by the fossils, archaeological and other biological evidence. The alternative claims offered are supported by nothing that I know of. Certainly, no evidence has bee offered to support the claims. Some, as you say, are unknown anywhere other than the claims of @cladking.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope. You are making it personal because -- you seem to be hand in hand with Dan's lack of desire to respond and snicker as if you don't notice it? While I feel sorry for you (and Dan), I thank you for your silly and shameful responses.

I've told you that I'm not going to respond to you and up until this post which I hope is the last one I have to make to you, I've been good to my word. But ignoring you seems to infuriate you and push you to constantly respond to my posts. If this is what you think Christianity is, I'm not that kind of Christian. If you think that any uniformed nonsense is a rational response to valid points, questions and positions, then I'm not your kind of Christian. If you think challenging nonsense and ignorance offered as fact with no reason to see it that way is Christian, then I am not your kind of Christian. If you think it is OK to ask a question, get an reasonable answer and then start a whole new thread asking the same questions over and over as if never asked and never answered, then I am not your kind of Christian. But I am Christian and I wonder why there is a difference here.

Please don't bother to respond to me anymore. I'm asking politely now. I won't be so polite after that when it returns to the harassment it has already been. And any others that want to slide their puck along the ice aimed at my head, you are welcome to ignore me too.

 

[gnostic]

But you still can't find a single instance where I used a word and definition not found in the dictionary. ...not one single instance. Indeed, I tend to use the first listed definitions of words like "basis of science" for "metaphysics".

That’s not a definition for metaphysics, because there are numbers of other philosophies that are also the “basis of science”:

• Naturalism, particularly Natural Philosophy
• Empiricism
• One of any number of analytic philosophies, particularly ones relating to science.
• Logical Positivism
• a posteriori
• inference (eg deduction, induction, abduction)

You seem to believe that only Metaphysics to “basis of science”, which is foolish, because experiments are not a priority to metaphysics. Too much of metaphysics relied on abstract rational reasoning, and not enough emphasis on experiments & empirical evidence.

The only philosophies that are relevant to today’s Natural Sciences are Methodological Naturalism & Falsification, and the main methodology is the Scientific Method.

 

[gnostic]

Thanks.

What you say is supported by the fossils, archaeological and other biological evidence. The alternative claims offered are supported by nothing that I know of. Certainly, no evidence has bee offered to support the claims. Some, as you say, are unknown anywhere other than the claims of @cladking.

i dislike the fact, he was addressing your point as you have with his, via deflecting and changing the subject that isn’t even relevant, to evolutionary biology.

Talking about population bottlenecks, then changing track to agriculture, seems like he have no answer to your reply.

 

[YoursTrue]

Preferences hopefully granted. We can say whatever we want practically without wondering who will get even maybe. or maybe not.