Such as?No it's not. Non intelligent processes "choose" things all the time.
Can you demonstrate this?Evolutionary algorithms are capable of designing things like bridges without input from users, for example.
Such as?No it's not. Non intelligent processes "choose" things all the time.
Can you demonstrate this?Evolutionary algorithms are capable of designing things like bridges without input from users, for example.
To hide from it's prey.I think the mutation is random. I'm not even sure the polar bear has a natural predator except for maybe man. So why does it even need a white coat?
maybe to be more stealth when approaching its prey?To hide from it's prey.
No one is claiming there is a conscious choice going on."Natural selection" would mean nature is selecting. Look up "anthropomorphize." Who or what are you claiming is doing the selecting?
Everyone.Who's "we?" It's the phrase that Darwinists use.
No. The evidence is accepted by the vast majority of biologists. If you think they're wrong, give your reasons.You mean what you SPECULATE, without evidence, happens.
Because polar bears are predators, they need to hide from their prey.I think the mutation is random. I'm not even sure the polar bear has a natural predator except for maybe man. So why does it even need a white coat?
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?I think Evolution is stuck with the term "natural selection." It's a misnomer.
Designing bridges via evolutionary algorithms is one of the first great successes of evolutionary algorithms. Here is the first result from a goolgle search:Can you demonstrate this?
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.What's a Prager U?
"Guided" is a tricky word, one that implies a conscious guider.Do you believe natural selection is guided and is not random? Why?
Ever see a Galton Board?Such as?
If polar bears were black, their prey would run away.maybe to be more stealth when approaching its prey?
No one is claiming there is a conscious choice going on.
No. The evidence is accepted by the vast majority of biologists.
A Prager U is a "university" whose "degrees" don't count.
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.
Your move.
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.If polar bears were black, their prey would run away.
Black polars would die out, very quickly.
Which is why there aren't any.
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.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.
...
But no one means that.The very definition of "select" is a conscious choice.
It's hard to tell whether this is a genuine comment or not.What evidence?
The following statement is not saying what everyone thinks it is saying. The miscommunication and misunderstanding of the words contributes to the confusion.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.
But no one means that.
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.
You have said the entire community of biologists misuse the scientific method, but you gave no examples.
Therefore, scientific observations support the theory that the cause of causes was a mind.
Yeah, this is pretty pedantic - "polar bears aren't white; they just LOOK white"?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.