A little wisdom from an old man

Whatsisface

Well-known member
"Natural selection" would mean nature is selecting. Look up "anthropomorphize." Who or what are you claiming is doing the selecting?
No one is claiming there is a conscious choice going on.
Who's "we?" It's the phrase that Darwinists use.
Everyone.
You mean what you SPECULATE, without evidence, happens.
No. The evidence is accepted by the vast majority of biologists. If you think they're wrong, give your reasons.

Throughout all of this you've just denied evolution without giving any good reason for that denial.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I think Evolution is stuck with the term "natural selection." It's a misnomer.
I don't see why, It describes perfectly well what's going on. In any case, why get hung up on a phrase when what really counts is what's meant by it. What's meant by it is not that nature consciously does any selecting, but that if one creature has a survival advantage over a fellow creature, he will more likely survive and pass on said advantage. How about using the phrase, nature taking it's course to describe what's going on?
 
Can you demonstrate this?
Designing bridges via evolutionary algorithms is one of the first great successes of evolutionary algorithms. Here is the first result from a goolgle search:


There are a LOT more examples. If you want to read further, you can just do a google search for evolutionary algorithms in engineering and get back to me in 50 years.
 
What's a Prager U?
A Prager U is a "university" whose "degrees" don't count. The point I was making (which seemed to go over your head) is that I do not believe that you have a degree in physics from an accredited university.

In short, I am calling you a liar. If you actually have a degree in physics, you can prove it by giving me a short description of how gravity works according to general relativity. Any attempt to copy and paste will be detected.

Your move.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Do you believe natural selection is guided and is not random? Why?
"Guided" is a tricky word, one that implies a conscious guider.
Natural selection is only guided in the same way that falling objects are guided by gravity.

When you have a population, some of whose genotypes make them more likely to reproduce than others, evolution can't not happen - the longer we wait, the more the former will outnumber the latter by sheer force of probability.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
A Prager U is a "university" whose "degrees" don't count.

Never heard of it. Are you upset that your Prager U degree doesn't count. Speaking of count, Count Charisma, can you at least count to 1?

I do not believe that you have a degree in physics..........

That ranks right up there with my concern over some cockroach not believing I'm going to step on him.

from an accredited university.

Georgia Tech, which incidentally, hired a new football coach yesterday.

In short, I am calling you a liar.

That ranks right up there with my cute little four year old niece calling me a silly poothead. Except you're not so cute.

If you actually have a degree in physics, you can prove it by giving me a short description of how gravity works according to general relativity.

What goes up must come down, relatively speaking. QED

Your move.

How did you know that that laxative was kicking in?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
If polar bears were black, their prey would run away.

Black polars would die out, very quickly.
Which is why there aren't any.
As a pedant, I should point out that the coat of a polar bear is made up of transparent hairs, which reflect most of the light that falls on them, thus appearing to be white. The skin of the bear is actually black, helping it retain heat. A rather more sophisticated solution to Arctic living than a simple white fur coat. It's still a product of evolution though, of course.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I particularly like what I've also heard C.S. Lewis mention, i.e. how if human life has been cobbled together by mindless unguided and random processes, we therefore have no reason to trust any cognitive faculties that produce any resulting atheistic thoughts.
...
I do not have time to respond properly, but I just wanted to acknowledge that you did answer my question and I will try to respond at some point.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
The very definition of "select" is a conscious choice.
But no one means that.
What evidence?
It's hard to tell whether this is a genuine comment or not.

There are countless books detailing the evidence that are freely available. Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth is a good one, as is Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. They are full of information and detail the evidence.

I have posted articles from reputable scientific journals detailing evidence for evolution, but rather than pointing out why they are wrong you have ignored them.

You have said the entire community of biologists misuse the scientific method, but you gave no examples.

All you've done is make claims without backing them up.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I particularly like what I've also heard C.S. Lewis mention, i.e. how if human life has been cobbled together by mindless unguided and random processes, we therefore have no reason to trust any cognitive faculties that produce any resulting atheistic thoughts.
The following statement is not saying what everyone thinks it is saying. The miscommunication and misunderstanding of the words contributes to the confusion.

“human life has been cobbled together by mindless unguided and random processes,”

1) “random processes” are unknown processes but still processes. IOW, not spontaneous events from nothing. These are unknown processes that happen for a reason or cause.

2) “unguided processes” is a misnomer because the premise of science is that all events are caused by something going all the way back to the cause of causes. IOW, the visible universe is deterministic. Everything happens for a reason, we just don’t have the resources or technology to identify all the reasons for the processes we observe. Therefore, they are not unguided processes for nature is doing exactly what it is supposed to do based on the laws of nature setup from the very beginning our cosmos. Consequently, this supports a more deistic point of view, and precludes the supernatural.

3)”mindless processes” is no where proven in the science literature. For if the cause of causes was intelligent then all processes in the cosmos are driven by a mind. Moreover, the most complex thing known to man was the cause of causes and complexity correlates with intelligence. Therefore, scientific observations support the theory that the cause of causes was a mind.

So can we dispense with all the misleading and false rhetoric FROM BOTH SIDES? The fact is that world is guided by processes, many of them unknown, by a cause that was arguably intelligent.
 
Last edited:

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
But no one means that.

Then you Darwinists should stop using the phrase "natural SELECTION."

It's hard to tell whether this is a genuine comment or not.

It's as genuine as a vintage 1957 Chevy Bel Air convertible.

There are countless books detailing the evidence that are freely available. Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth is a good one, as is Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True.

Are you able to tell us in your own words how and when anyone, in keeping with the scientific method, has been able to observe one species randomly mutating into another species which went on to reproduce?

You have said the entire community of biologists misuse the scientific method, but you gave no examples.

Examples of LACK of evidence? Can you give an example of a number that doesn't exist?
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
As a pedant, I should point out that the coat of a polar bear is made up of transparent hairs, which reflect most of the light that falls on them, thus appearing to be white. The skin of the bear is actually black, helping it retain heat. A rather more sophisticated solution to Arctic living than a simple white fur coat. It's still a product of evolution though, of course.
Yeah, this is pretty pedantic - "polar bears aren't white; they just LOOK white"?

Colour is look :ROFLMAO:
 
Top