Evolution My ToE

[ecco]

Are you saying that when I said you compared me to a serpent (which I did HERE and HERE), I was twisting your words because you didn't compare me to a serpent, you just said my actions were serpentlike?

So I didn't call you a serpent, but I compared you to a serpent, in your opinion?

I don't see a problem. God chose a serpent to do his bidding. Serpents should feel honored. There are no indications that God ever asked Lions to do His bidding. There are no indications that God ever asked wolves to do His bidding. Serpents should feel honored.

 

[nPeace]

@Jose Fly I am logging off now, so I will leave my follow up question with you, and see you hopefully after tomorrow.

Since you were explaining how natural selection acts on variation, and the example you used - predators preying on weak prey (please recall, I asked you to make any adjustments to reflect accuracy. You still have time to do that, if you like), does not quality as, or is not natural selection, then you have not shown how natural selection acts on variation.

That seemed to be your best example for explaining it, so I would suggest, you can't.
Unless, of course you have another to try.
Or, you could say, it's the selective pressure - which you were really explaining - that acts on the variation... not natural selection.
That way we can both go away agreeing on this. ... and we can move on.
So, do we agree?

See you next week, God's will.
Have a good night.

 

[dad]

The reason that science does not have a mechanism for the rapid separation is that there was no rapid separation, except in your convoluted mind.

They have not because they seek not. Also..because they are still in cave man science phase compared to the superscience of God.

Nature was not in total opposition to recorded life, except in your convoluted mind.

Since it was created for us why would it be in opposition to us? Crazy talk. It would be different from today though if it was changed.

 

[Jose Fly]

Since you are not saying predation is natural selection, but a component of it, then
A. Predators (wolves) preying the weaker prey [predation] is not natural selection... is true.
Is that right?

@Jose Fly Since you were explaining how natural selection acts on variation, and the example you used - predators preying on weak prey (please recall, I asked you to make any adjustments to reflect accuracy. You still have time to do that, if you like), does not quality as, or is not natural selection, then you have not shown how natural selection acts on variation.

That seemed to be your best example for explaining it, so I would suggest, you can't.
Unless, of course you have another to try.
Or, you could say, it's the selective pressure - which you were really explaining - that acts on the variation... not natural selection.
That way we can both go away agreeing on this. ... and we can move on.
So, do we agree?

Yes, technically it is selective pressures that act on variation, and selective pressures are but one component of the larger process of natural selection.

I think what may be going on here is this all started with the language on the Evolution 101 page. It's important to keep in mind that the site is just giving a simplistic overview for laypeople, whereas what we're getting into now (the difference between natural selection and selective pressure, and how selective pressures are but one component of natural selection) is more detailed.

It's like if you went to a web page that described how cars work, but was designed for people with little to no understanding of cars. The page might say something like "the engine is what makes the car go". But if you started talking about that in more detail with a mechanic, you would quickly get into how actually, the engine is but one component that makes the car go.

So just as "the engine is what makes the car go" isn't technically correct, "natural selection acts of variation" isn't technically correct either. But if a layperson said the former to a mechanic and the latter to a biologist, both would most likely respond "Yeah, that's right" because both are true enough in a broad, general sense.

See you next week, God's will.
Have a good night.

Thanks. You too.

 

[ecco]

The reason that science does not have a mechanism for the rapid separation is that there was no rapid separation, except in your convoluted mind.

They have not because they seek not.

That is an untrue statement. You know that scientists determined that continents have been moving. You know very well that they determined the cause of continental movement.

To say "because they seek not" is either a bald-faced lie or a comment from willful ignorance. I'll let you explain which it is to me and the lurkers.

 

[dad]

You know that scientists determined that continents have been moving. You know very well that they determined the cause of continental movement.

To say "because they seek not" is either a bald-faced lie or a comment from willful ignorance. I'll let you explain which it is to me and the lurkers.

When we look at creation using nothing but the criteria that it was not created, but rather try to explain it all in any other way, that is not seeking. Keeping God out of their knowledge is not seeking. It is rejecting God and truth and the light and loving darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When we look at creation using nothing but the criteria that it was not created, but rather try to explain it all in any other way, that is not seeking. Keeping God out of their knowledge is not seeking. It is rejecting God and truth and the light and loving darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.

This is the sort of lame thing that a person that has lost the argument says. You have a burden of proof. If you cannot show a good reason to believe in your god there is no reason to consider his existence. What evidence besides a self contradicting book of myths do you have for the existence of your god? If he is real you should be able to come up with something.

You are in effect failing your god when you cannot support that there is any reason to believe in him.

 

[Darkstorn]

because their deeds are evil.

Counterpoint: You are an evil last thursdayist who's advocating for a deceiver god planting false evidence. Prove me wrong.

If you won't, i won't even bother reading your response.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, technically it is selective pressures that act on variation, and selective pressures are but one component of the larger process of natural selection.

I think what may be going on here is this all started with the language on the Evolution 101 page. It's important to keep in mind that the site is just giving a simplistic overview for laypeople, whereas what we're getting into now (the difference between natural selection and selective pressure, and how selective pressures are but one component of natural selection) is more detailed.

It's like if you went to a web page that described how cars work, but was designed for people with little to no understanding of cars. The page might say something like "the engine is what makes the car go". But if you started talking about that in more detail with a mechanic, you would quickly get into how actually, the engine is but one component that makes the car go.

So just as "the engine is what makes the car go" isn't technically correct, "natural selection acts of variation" isn't technically correct either. But if a layperson said the former to a mechanic and the latter to a biologist, both would most likely respond "Yeah, that's right" because both are true enough in a broad, general sense.


Thanks. You too.

I don't agree.
The fact that you can't say true, when the answer is obviously true, seems to indicates what I think to be the case.
I think people use broad terms for convenience - in order to "take a little here, and a little there", and still be in the game.
It's like playing a baseball game, where the touch base is five times the regular size.
I see it, not only in this case, but in other terms, including the use of the term evolution.

It's easy to say something, but when it comes to explaining it, one begins to see that the terms are just used loosely, because "it really doesn't matter as long as it works for the proposed idea"... imv.

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

However, I am not really interested in what people say, if they can't explain it. That's like asking me to believe in what others believe, without understanding why they believe it.

Note though, that Evolution 101 is not the only site that says "natural selection acts on variation".
A quick google will reveal that.

We will also see from this source...
* Natural selection acts on the phenotype, the characteristics of the organism which actually interact with the environment...
* Natural selection can act on any heritable phenotypic trait...
* Natural selection acts on an organism's phenotype, or physical characteristics

* Natural selection is here understood to act on embryonic development to change the morphology of the adult body.
* Natural selection acts on individuals...

So natural selection acts on almost everything, apparently.
I can certainly understand a few of those expressions, since they indicate an effect on - not what makes it happen, but something else.... like the example I gave of the weather. It produces an effect.

So I can understand the conditions that form natural selection, and what drives it in one direction or other.
It may be, I don't fully understand it, but if it is not simple to explain, then perhaps it's not simple to understand, as some claim.

In my opinion, Evolution 101 explains things in a very simple way. I understand how it explains natural selection here, but it also makes statements I don't agree with, and there are valid reasons not to agree. It's not a case of my not wanting to agree.
It's okay to not agree with something. That's fair, isn't it?

 

[Darkstorn]

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

Forgot to add this: Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

/E: Accidentally messed this post in an edit, it's now restored.

 

[nPeace]

1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

/E: Forgot to add this: Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

Who's talking about evolution here? Perhaps you jumped in without looking. Which post are you responding to?

 

[Darkstorn]

Who's talking about evolution here? Perhaps you jumped in without looking. Which post are you responding to?

Yours.

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

natural selection


Last i checked, natural selection is a part of evolution.

Not to mention you used the word "evolution."

In case it wasn't clear: You made a terrible analogy of evolution and cars. I responded to that. You seem confused. You're asking "who's talking about evolution here?" in a thread about evolution, on the evolution vs creationism subforum, made by yourself.

 

[nPeace]

Yours.





Last i checked, natural selection is a part of evolution.

Not to mention you used the word "evolution."

In case it wasn't clear: You made a terrible analogy of evolution and cars. I responded to that. You seem confused. You're asking "who's talking about evolution here?" in a thread about evolution, on the evolution vs creationism subforum, made by yourself.

Please. I never said anything in relation to randomness and evolution.
If you are here to discuss something I said, please don't just throw anything around. Please address what I said.
I can't respond to random comments that are irrelevant to what I posted. Thanks.

 

[Darkstorn]

Please. I never said anything in relation to randomness and evolution.
If you are here to discuss something I said, please don't just throw anything around. Please address what I said.
I can't respond to random comments that are irrelevant to what I posted. Thanks.

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

/E: Forgot to add this: Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

How are you this confused? I am literally responding to a post you made.

/E: This has got to be the weirdest dodge i've ever seen. In another thread he didn't even address half the points i was making and now he's invoking "please address what i said!"

 

[nPeace]

1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

/E: Forgot to add this: Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

How are you this confused? I am literally responding to a post you made.

/E: This has got to be the weirdest dodge i've ever seen. In another thread he didn't even address half the points i was making and now he's invoking "please address what i said!"

What's your point?

 

[Darkstorn]

What's your point?

Your car and evolution analogy is terrible, mostly that. As to why it's terrible? You can find all about it in the post you're failing to understand.

 

[nPeace]

Your car and evolution analogy is terrible, mostly that. As to why it's terrible? You can find all about it in the post you're failing to understand.

It appears you are referring to a much earlier post way back in this thread. I accept your opinion. Is there anything else, or did you only want to talk about the cars?

 

[Darkstorn]

It appears you are referring to a much earlier post way back in this thread. I accept your opinion. Is there anything else, or did you only want to talk about the cars?

Post number 609. Posted today. There's a little arrow in the quotes that links you to the original post.

Keep dodging more. Again:

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

 

[nPeace]

Post number 609. Posted today. There's a little arrow in the quotes that links you to the original post.

Keep dodging more.

That, I told you before, had nothing... or more specifically was not compared to evolution. Do you understand that?

 

[Darkstorn]

That, I told you before, had nothing... or more specifically was not compared to evolution. Do you understand that?

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

/E: Forgot to add this: Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

Actual reality: You're comparing evolution to cars.