Why can't some people understand that Evolution is not Atheism.

[fschmidt]

Yes animals can learn, but please give me one specific example of a rule agreed upon by a group of animals.

 

[shawn001]

Yes animals can learn, but please give me one specific example of a rule agreed upon by a group of animals.

What do you mean by rule exactly?

I am using dolphins here an an example, but they have very complex societies, conciousness and a language and comunicate and learn new behaviors and have a set of rules that they abide by so there is not chaos in their societies.

Tel me what is the difference between "instinctual" and learned behaviors?

 

[shawn001]

Killer whales for example can comminicate with each other certain rules for how they will attack certain prey, by concensus.

Certain animals punish individual animals in the group for bad behavior and breaking the "rules."

Its not "instinctual" for Elepahnts to paint, yet they can and seem to enjoy it.

They have orangutans using ipads now.

 

[shawn001]

Humpbacks have humanlike brain cells

Cetaceans may have evolved infrastructure for intelligence before primates

"Humpback whales have a type of brain cell seen only in humans, the great apes and other cetaceans such as dolphins, researchers reported on Monday.
This might mean such whales are more intelligent than they have been given credit for, and suggests the basis for complex brains either evolved more than once, or has gone unused by most species of animals, the researchers said.
The finding may help explain some of the behaviors seen in whales, such as intricate communication skills, the formation of alliances, cooperation, cultural transmission and tool usage, the researchers report in The Anatomical Record.
Patrick Hof and Estel Van der Gucht of the Department of Neuroscience at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York studied the brains of humpback whales and discovered a type of cell called a spindle neuron in the cortex, in areas comparable to where they are seen in humans and great apes.

Although the function of spindle neurons is not well understood, they may be involved in cognition — learning, remembering and recognizing the world around oneself."

Humpbacks have humanlike brain cells - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

 

[rusra02]

Um, which facts and evidence are you talking about?

-Nato

If you can't find the evidence for an intelligent Designer, you simply aren't looking.

Well, the conclusion that God isn't necessary to explain the diversity of species isn't necessarily a valid basis for claiming there's no God. But it's a powerful proof-of-concept demonstration that even staggeringly complex natural phenomena can be explained without recourse to deliberate supernatural or divine intervention. As a consequence, we don't need to believe that Goddidit is a necessary explanation for anything, since it doesn't seem to be a particularly meaningful explanation in the first place.


-Nato

That's just it. The "staggeringly complex" phenomena cannot be explained by evolution. Rather, it is simply glossed over with recourse to mythical events, such as "natural selection" creating new life forms. Michael Behe wrote: "Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature-in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books- that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred...The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster."
Good word for the evolutionist community. Bluster, speaking authoritatively and hoping no one questions the lack of evidence for evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's just it. The "staggeringly complex" phenomena cannot be explained by evolution.

This is a very strange thing to say, since that's exactly what evolution explains.

Rather, it is simply glossed over with recourse to mythical events, such as "natural selection" creating new life forms.

That's not a myth. It's what all of the collected evidence indicates.

Michael Behe wrote: "Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature-in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books- that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred...The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster."

Is this the same Michael Behe who now accepts common descent?

Good word for the evolutionist community. Bluster, speaking authoritatively and hoping no one questions the lack of evidence for evolution.

Hold on, you are the one who seems to think that quoting random people makes a good case for your side of the debate. I don't see any facts whatsoever, just cut and pastes from various suspect, misquoted or outright dishonest sources. You appear to be the one relying on authority, not us.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

If you can't find the evidence for an intelligent Designer, you simply aren't looking.

I've always said that when that's specifically what you're looking for, you always seem to find it. But the evidence always lacks the context necessary to be a coherent, persuasive construct.

That's just it. The "staggeringly complex" phenomena cannot be explained by evolution. Rather, it is simply glossed over with recourse to mythical events, such as "natural selection" creating new life forms. Michael Behe wrote: "Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature-in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books- that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred...The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster."
Good word for the evolutionist community. Bluster, speaking authoritatively and hoping no one questions the lack of evidence for evolution.

Intelligent design doesn't explain the phenomena either, it just attributes them to the handiwork of some vague designer whose intentions just so happened to be to create a phenomenon to look exactly the way we see it. Arguments for design rely on Affirming the Consequent in the same way as conspiracy theories and descriptions of so-called miracles do.

And incidentally, Michael Behe doesn't dispute that species evolution is responsible for the biological diversity we see in the world today. He merely disputes that certain evolutionary transitions or the development of certain complex systems could have happened without the intervention of a designer. Not that I think his ideas are coherent or meaningful, but I thought I'd make the distinction for the millionth time.

-Nato

 

[Dirty Penguin]

We know that human is either female and male.
but there are gays,which are an aberrant cases.

Man is both male and female. There are noaberrant cases.

 

[FearGod]

Man is both male and female. There are noaberrant cases.

so what you call gays,upnormal cases

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Killer whales for example can comminicate with each other certain rules for how they will attack certain prey, by concensus.

Certain animals punish individual animals in the group for bad behavior and breaking the "rules."

Its not "instinctual" for Elepahnts to paint, yet they can and seem to enjoy it.

They have orangutans using ipads now.

I agree. I was heavily invested in the couple of seasons of Meerkats. They have a heiarchy and when they go out to looking for food they point a guardian tostay behind to watch the young. While out onfood patrol one will take the high ground and keep watch for enemies. We, the human primate, aren't toomuch different than any other animal in the kingdom.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

so what you call gays,upnormal cases

Lesbian and gay women/men are as "normal" as anyone else.

 

[FearGod]

Lesbian and gay women/men are as "normal" as anyone else.

so now genders in the RF,ID and passports are male,female,gay,lesbian.

 

[fantome profane]

so now genders in the RF,ID and passports are male,female,gay,lesbian.

I have no idea what you are talking about or what your point is. But does it have anything to do with Evolution? Or anything to do with the topic of this thread?

 

[secret2]

so now genders in the RF,ID and passports are male,female,gay,lesbian.

Do you understand what gender is and what sexual orientation is?

 

[FearGod]

Do you understand what gender is and what sexual orientation is?

who mentioned sexual orientation ?

 

[secret2]

who mentioned sexual orientation ?

Gee please tell me you're joking

 

[FearGod]

Gee please tell me you're joking

not joking,even talking about sexual orientation.
in my community,it isnt normal for a man to be attracted to a gay,
but men attracted to women and vice versa.

So it depends on tradition and community.
What may be normal in one community will not mean that it should be
normal for the whole world.

 

[fantome profane]

not joking,even talking about sexual orientation.
in my community,it isnt normal for a man to be attracted to a gay,
but men attracted to women and vice versa.

So it depends on tradition and community.
What may be normal in one community will not mean that it should be
normal for the whole world.

Again I ask you what this has to do with Evolution or with the topic of this thread?

 

[FearGod]

Again I ask you what this has to do with Evolution or with the topic of this thread?

i dont know,you have to go back to the original post,i dont have a lot
of time to search for previous posts

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin
Man is both male and female. There are noaberrant cases.

 

[tumbleweed41]

We know that human is either female and male.
but there are gays,which are an aberrant cases.

Do you understand the difference between sexual gender and sexual orientation?

And if not, you are really unqualified to speak towards biological evolution.