Why is evolution even still a debate?

[Wildswanderer]

Snakes did not evolve into mammals.

So then you cannot get from a single-celled organism to a mammal...

 

[Polymath257]

Why would a human have any more awe than an amoeba in a world created by chance?

Because we have bigger brains, which can process more information and an emotions.

 

[Polymath257]

So then you cannot get from a single-celled organism to a mammal...

Yes, you can. The evolution of mammals didn't go through snakes.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Adaption is evolution.

This is why the evolution crowd gets away with a lot because they don't define their terms well. Creationist all believe in what you would call evolution in a species... The disagreement is one kind transitioning into another kind.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No.... There's no reason for awe minus a creator as I already said... We live in that world that was made by God so we all have that capability.

Now you're just trying to change what you said.

 

[Polymath257]

No.... There's no reason for awe minus a creator as I already said... We live in that world that was made by God so we all have that capability.

The feeling of awe is an emotion. Why would we not have emotions if there is no deity?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is why the evolution crowd gets away with a lot because they don't define their terms well. Creationist all believe in what you would call evolution in a species... The disagreement is one kind transitioning into another kind.

They are defined well.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, you can. The evolution of mammals didn't go through snakes.

Then you have to have multiple miracles at once.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The feeling of awe is an emotion. Why would we not have emotions if there is no deity?

Why would we even have emotion? It actually gets in the way of survival.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Don't be a fool.

Reported. I've given you enough slack in this area.

Incidentally, maybe you should have your ducks in a row before calling others fools. I don't feel like dignifying it by pointing out your errors here. I'll let others do it.

 

[Polymath257]

This is why the evolution crowd gets away with a lot because they don't define their terms well. Creationist all believe in what you would call evolution in a species... The disagreement is one kind transitioning into another kind.

And what is a 'kind', precisely? Please define your terms.

For example, are domestic cats and tigers different kinds? Are all snakes the same 'kind'? Why or why not? Are all insects the same 'kind'? All beetles? Why or why not?

 

[Wildswanderer]

The feeling of awe is an emotion. Why would we not have emotions if there is no deity?

Do you think of coyote has emotions about killing a rabbit?
And yet the human predator can hesitate because "0h that deer is so cute."

 

[Polymath257]

Why would we even have emotion? It actually gets in the way of survival.

Not true. Usually, emotions are best at quick 'decisions' based on insufficient data. This can be a huge survival benefit in certain environments.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And what is a 'kind', precisely? Please define your terms.

For example, are domestic cats and tigers different kinds? Are all snakes the same 'kind'? Why or why not? Are all insects the same 'kind'? All beetles? Why or why not?

Felines are felines... snakes are snakes. It's not hard to understand.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you think of coyote has emotions about killing a rabbit?

Yes. Probably happiness and relief because it won't starve.

And yet the human predator can hesitate because "0h that deer is so cute."

Some do. Some don't.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes. Probably happiness and relief because it won't starve.



Some do. Some don't.

But the emotion isn't helpful trust me. I know. Even getting Buck fever isn't helpful. The most effective Hunter would be the one with no emotion whatsoever about it.

 

[Polymath257]

Felines are felines... snakes are snakes. It's not hard to understand.

Are all mammals mammals? Are all mammals of the same 'kind'?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Are all mammals mammals? Are all mammals of the same 'kind'?

No... For example, all canines would be one kind.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And this is particularly true about the past... They can't even get things a few centuries years ago totally correct, yeah we are expected to believe they know what was going on 13 billion years ago.

Totally correct is not the standard. Newtonian physics is not totally correct. But it is still valuable physics.

It's obvious by the fact that the science is always changing... That most of what we're getting fed is actually false.

That's incorrect. You might as well say the same about any other thing where progress is made, like celestial mechanics or cosmology. Improvement and new knowledge is not an indicator of prior error as the Newton example illustrates. Computers are evolving. It doesn't make earlier computers false.

there's no mechanism, natural selection doesn't have a mechanism.

It's evolution, not natural selection, that has the mechanism, and natural selection is part of it, as is genetic variation in populations over generations. The environment will determine what is selected from the various phenotypes, and if the environment changes, what is selected will change.

No ... that's just adaptation.

As others have told you, and as I just told you, evolution is the adaptation of living populations to their environments over generations.

Why would we even have emotion? It actually gets in the way of survival.

Really? Fight or flight interferes with survival? How about sexual desire?

Are you familiar with the anhedonia of major depression? It's characterized by the loss of feeling and emotions, and is a risk factor for suicide. THAT gets in the way of survival, not emotion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Again. I do not believe in "punctuated equilibrium". This is merely the closest biological hypothesis to what I do believe which is far more complex than any set of hypotheses. I believe all of reality takes place interdependently and based upon conditions which immediately preceded it. Since time is probably not quantum than even the previous statement is a somewhat simplistic way of describing the immense complexity that is reality and that we each take for granted.

I believe the nature and causes of change in species are many orders of magnitude more complex than any current "theory" and that "survival of the fittest" does not really apply to the mechanisms that cause species or collections of individuals to change. "Natural selection" is an abstraction and is produced by a reductionistic science that can't even study change in species because we preferentially see our beliefs and abstractions to reality itself. Darwin led us far astray. One must jettison everything but experiment and known facts as well as define consciousness before even beginning to see how individuals of species change from their parents in a coherent way that we call "evolution". Just because off spring can coherently differ from their parents does not mean they have "evolved" or that it was caused by "survival of the fittest".

"Evolution" is a "science" based on false assumptions. Ironically religion got it closer than "science" in this specific case.

What does what you "believe" have to do with anything? Even though you claim science is based on false assumptions in this case, you don't even bother to mention what assumptions you are using. And your suggestion that 'because off spring can coherently differ from their parents does not mean they have "evolved"' shows that you don't have a firm grasp on what evolving actually means -- and it is most certainly not "just being different from parents."

So, please back up your claim that "Darwin led us far astray," with something at least vaguely factual -- if you have anything.