Evolutionary science and atheism

[metis]

I agree fully with this, in my line of work the need to mention the differences is ... well it's unnecessary but if we'd be forced to we'd just agree with you.

There is ONE theory of evolution and it in NO way distinguishes between short term or long term evolution.

"some biologists" are not worthy of their grants... Behe being one of them. being useless in your field should be grounds for getting fired but i hear they are using that poor sap to make articles in their own "scientific" magazines now which are peer reviewed by their own kind so they can come up with whatever and its' all good for them.

It's pathetic.

Behe got slammed real good in the Dover trial, but the guy I'm sure is making money and crying all the way to the bank.

 

[Slapstick]

Not really, i'm making fun of it because there really is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, the Theory does not distinguish between long term or short term evolution at all.

But since everyone sane knew that and are now laughing at you, i just thouhgt i'd keep the joke running until you got it...

No such luck.

I stop taking your posts seriously after you replied to my op. None of your posts this far have been substantive and I don’t expect them to get better.

There is ONE theory of evolution and it in NO way distinguishes between short term or long term evolution.

However, I would like to say no crap. Do you know what a reference model is or a frame of reference? They are not used to distinguish the short term from long term; they are used to focus in on a particular area of interest. I’m in the field of computer science, roughly 80% of my time is devoted to studying and understanding different models and applying those models to systems to better understand how those systems work, refine them and make them better. If you refer to evolution as simply being the theory of evolution then you are generalizing things to the point that you are no longer concern with how changes happen, occur or take place. That or whatever models you use are completely outdated and whacky.

 

[metis]

If one says "theory of evolution", they pretty much need to define their terminology. And often this is part of a disconnect between people as I have seen often, whereas they were using different definitions or adding attachments to it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If one says "theory of evolution", they pretty much need to define their terminology.

Really? Which part? The "of" part?

 

[metis]

Really? Which part? The "of" part?

So many people attach things to the basic ToE, which is what I quickly found out with my students when first teaching anthropology. Therefore, at the beginning of the course, I had to define the ToE in very basic terms, which went like this: the concept that organisms go through genetic changes whereas new species may eventually emerge.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So many people attach things to the basic ToE, which is what I quickly found out with my students when first teaching anthropology. Therefore, at the beginning of the course, I had to define the ToE in very basic terms, which went like this: the concept that organisms go through genetic changes whereas new species may eventually emerge.

I actually find the wikipedia definition to be one that makes it abundantly clear.]

Evolution is the change in inherited characteristics of biological organisms over successive generations.

 

[metis]

I actually find the wikipedia definition to be one that makes it abundantly clear.]

Evolution is the change in inherited characteristics of biological organisms over successive generations.

I certainly can buy that.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I certainly can buy that.

Essentially saying that you dont' believe in evolution is the same as saying characteristics are not inherited and change.

People also at least as far as I can tell, mistake evolution with natural selection. Natural selection is a way that evolution works, and is definitely a large large component of it, but it's not the only thing that makes evolution...well evolution.

 

[metis]

Essentially saying that you dont' believe in evolution is the same as saying characteristics are not inherited and change.

People also at least as far as I can tell, mistake evolution with natural selection. Natural selection is a way that evolution works, and is definitely a large large component of it, but it's not the only thing that makes evolution...well evolution.

And they often even make mistakes with natural selection by not being aware that this also has many variations. For example, amongst many species, mutual cooperation, both within a species and even sometimes between different species, is often part of "survival of the fittest".

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

And they often even make mistakes with natural selection by not being aware that this also has many variations. For example, amongst many species, mutual cooperation, both within a species and even sometimes between different species, is often part of "survival of the fittest".

Survival of the fittest as well doesn't mean you'll survive everywhere.

 

[Ouroboros]

So many people attach things to the basic ToE, which is what I quickly found out with my students when first teaching anthropology. Therefore, at the beginning of the course, I had to define the ToE in very basic terms, which went like this: the concept that organisms go through genetic changes whereas new species may eventually emerge.

Very similar to phrases my anthropology teachers had too.

 

[Ouroboros]

Essentially saying that you dont' believe in evolution is the same as saying characteristics are not inherited and change.

True.

Which means God created all the different variations of dogs (dalmatians, poodles, etc) in the last couple of hundred years. They just *pooffed* into existence.

People also at least as far as I can tell, mistake evolution with natural selection. Natural selection is a way that evolution works, and is definitely a large large component of it, but it's not the only thing that makes evolution...well evolution.

Yup.

And there are different selective processes too, not just "survival". Sexual selection is more of preference, attraction, attention, etc.

 

[Ouroboros]

Survival of the fittest as well doesn't mean you'll survive everywhere.

That phrase is so misleading and incomplete. In many cases, the less fit also survives. It's not about being the top of the class A+ and that's the only one who survives for future generations. Most of the time is "death of the unfit" which leaves a lot more wiggle room for variations, i.e. "survival of the non-unfit."

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That phrase is so misleading and incomplete. In many cases, the less fit also survives. It's not about being the top of the class A+ and that's the only one who survives for future generations. Most of the time is "death of the unfit" which leaves a lot more wiggle room for variations, i.e. "survival of the non-unfit."

which is why social darwinism fails.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So many people attach things to the basic ToE

But this is simply a matter of misconception or bad information (such as the preponderance of strawmen of evolutionary theory, or even distortions in popular media)- not defining terms. What the theory consists of isn't open to alot of interpretation- one is either familiar with the theory, or not, properly understands the relevant terms or concepts, or not.

In any case, I understand what you mean completely, I just thought that was a somewhat peculiar choice of words.

 

[metis]

In any case, I understand what you mean completely, I just thought that was a somewhat peculiar choice of words.

It's not the first time I've been accused of that.

 

[Slapstick]

It's not the first time I've been accused of that.

Not the first time I have been accused by arrogant nimrods that I don't know what I'm talking about either.