Bad Examples

[Montalban]

So your argument against evolution says what about creationism?

I make no argument here about creationism. I could cite 'bad examples' used to support creationism.* Try dealing with the topic at hand.


*-Fr Seraphim Rose said this about Genesis “Some Protestant fundamentalists tell us it is all (or virtually all) 'literal.” But such a view places us in some impossible difficulties: quite apart form our literal or non-literal interpretation of various passages, the very nature of the reality which is described in the first chapters of genesis the very creation of all things) makes it quite impossible for everything to be understood 'literally'; we don't even have words, for example, to describe 'literally' how something can come from nothing. How does God “speak”? - does He make a noise which resounds in an atmosphere that doesn't yet exist?”
Fr Seraphim Rose, (2000) “Genesis Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision”, (Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood; Platina, CA), p69

 

[Montalban]

Nothing was too subtle, but now you're just playing semantics with the various connotations of "natural." We as humans tend to differentiate our actions from those of other organisms, and as such tend to label a bird's nest as natural, but a house as not natural, even though both are dwellings made by animals. The difference is in degree of complexity only. And that we consider outselves special and outside of nature. Which is technically not true. Is a bird's nest natural? Is a termite nest natural? Is a beehive natural? Whatever your answer, can you please explain how you determine which sort of things are natural or unnatural?

I agree with you . The man shot to death died by natural causes - murder in (what???) the fourth degree?

 

[Skaloop]

I agree with you . The man shot to death died by natural causes - murder in (what???) the fourth degree?

Nope. Most likely first degree. But now you are mixing legal terms in with regular words.

I'll ask once again; where is the line between natural and unnatural? I shoot a man; that would generally be considered "unnatural." I beat a man to death with a baseball bat... also probably unnatural. I beat a man to death with a tree branch... still unnatural, right? A chimp kills a man with a tree branch... is that more natural? What if the chimp does it with a baseball bat?

I would like to know where you would draw the line.

 

[Chalnoth]

So "Origin of the Species" was just a popular work to promote Evolution?

No. But then again, I didn't see you discuss any of the arguments in Origin.

Thanks for the (albeit slight) diversion from the OP.

And?

Also, I don't see this as a deviation from the OP at all. I'm directly addressing your accusation of bad examples by presenting good ones.

Talkorigins, speaking of which, do their best to apologise for Darwin using the term...
The best twist on this is...
The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was not even Darwin's. It was urged on him by Wallace, the codiscoverer of natural selection, who hated 'natural selection' because he thought it implied that something was doing the selecting. Darwin coined the term 'natural selection' because had made an analogy with 'artificial selection' as done by breeders, an analogy Wallace hadn't made when he developed his version of the theory. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was originally due to Herbert Spencer some years before the Origin
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
That is, it doesn't argue that he didn't use it, just that he didn't 'coin' it.

Why is this important?

The main problem with "survival of the fittest" is that it's somewhat misleading. It suggests that mere survival is the primary driver of evolution, when this is not the case. Evolution is about successful reproduction, not mere survival. This is, fundamentally, why we tend to prefer the term "natural selection" today, because it can encompass a greater variety of effects. Ultimately it's irrelevant what words Darwin chose to use. We aren't slaves to his way of thinking, or those of his contemporaries.

 

[Montalban]

Nope. Most likely first degree. But now you are mixing legal terms in with regular words.

That's right "Natural selection" is just 'regular' words. I got them from a 'regular' dictionary.

I'll ask once again; where is the line between natural and unnatural?

planned by a man - un-natural
caused by nature - natural

You talk of 'regular' words...

Natural
Artificial

It would help if you look at the word 'artifice' - something done with thought.

I shoot a man; that would generally be considered "unnatural." I beat a man to death with a baseball bat... also probably unnatural. I beat a man to death with a tree branch... still unnatural, right? A chimp kills a man with a tree branch... is that more natural? What if the chimp does it with a baseball bat?

The degree of thought of a chimp would be somewhat less than that of a man, I even include you in that

I find it funny you would raise the idea of a chimp with a baseball bat as a 'puzzle' for me regarding natural, and artificial.

 

[Chalnoth]

I make no argument here about creationism. I could cite 'bad examples' used to support creationism.* Try dealing with the topic at hand.

Er, that would be every argument that has ever been proposed to support creationism.

 

[MoonLancer]

A while back I ask for evidence of creationism in a thread i created. It went a few pages. No creationists stood up and presented evidence. None. I was very disappointed.

if you present evidence for creationism, you would be one of the first.

Heck I couldn't even find a definition of creation that's testable, or what about it could possibly be considered falsifiable.

Its really sad that creationism has gotten as far as it has. Its hardly even a hypothisis.

 

[USincognito]

Are you here to discuss the bad examples I mentioned, or not?

Responding to a question with another question is not the same as answering it. So could you actually answer my question?

Is an evolutionary the opposite of a creationary?

I'm an evolutionary!

 

[Naraoia]

In one you have an 'intelligence' (we would call the breeder) taking time to pick and choose particular traits with (one would hope) an ultimate goal. Nature doesn't do that. "Natural selection" is simply another means of describing his truism, that which survives, survives.

Natural selection, or survival of the fittest, or whatever you prefer to call it, =/= that which survives, survives. There's also the ... *cough* minor point about it that that which survives is different from that which doesn't (hence selection - if it was just random butchery then there'd be no reason to call it selection).

The truism is that which survives, survives. Darwin preferred to use it. Note my first post cited a reference that accepts it as a truism.

Wow, someone accepts it? So what? I agree it's stupid phrasing, but the idea behind it isn't a truism. (I wonder how many times I'll have to tell you why before you accept it).

Except that they involve goals, intelligence, artifical selection, etc.

I kindly refer you back to my little selection experiment with biomorphs. I didn't set a goal in any way. I only set a perfectly natural and immediate criterion of "fitness" - size. Please check the results and tell me how my intelligence is required for similar things. (Or, indeed, to get complex shapes by RANDOM choice...)

Biomorphs might look cooler if you select them with an ultimate goal, but goals are not necessary for them to evolve into rather elaborate shapes.

Last time I checked 'selection' was a process. Not a result.

Indeed. Who said it was a result?

I'm an evolutionary!

Lol T-shirt

 

[Naraoia]

Fail? In what?

Being used to random creationists spewing PRATTs, I thought you were implying that Haeckel's little tweakery somehow invalidated the evidence from embryology. If that wasn't your point then I fully agree. Those drawings shouldn't be used, and they still appear on lecture slides (*shudder* even on slides of people who ought to know better... just a couple of weeks ago they waved at me in an evo-devo lecture, in fact)

 

[marktheblake]

A while back I ask for evidence of creationism in a thread i created. It went a few pages. No creationists stood up and presented evidence.

I wouldn't have offered any evidence as I have not made any new discoveries myself. Any thing else can be easily found on the internet, so no revelations from me, nor anyone else around here.

So I would question your motivation for asking for evidence

Its really sad that creationisum has gotten as far as it has. Its hardly even a hypothisis

. It is comments like this that show your true motive. And you still dont understand why nobody took your bait?

I dont need to show any evidence for creation, I already believe it.

 

[Chalnoth]

I dont need to show any evidence for creation, I already believe it.

Why don't you care that you have valid reasons for believing what you believe?

 

[marktheblake]

Why don't you care ...

where did I say I dont care?

 

[Chalnoth]

where did I say I dont care?

Where you said you don't need evidence because you already believe it.

 

[marktheblake]

I have checked twice, it doesn't say anywhere in there that I dont care.

 

[Chalnoth]

I have checked twice, it doesn't say anywhere in there that I dont care.

It was implied when you said you don't need evidence for something you already believe. This indicates that you aren't interested in ensuring that your beliefs lie on a solid foundation.

 

[marktheblake]

It was implied when you said you don't need evidence for something you already believe.

I have checked again - just to be sure, it doesnt say "I dont need evidence" either, so obviously that is not implied at all.

You seem to be really struggling to read a simple sentence?

This indicates that you aren't interested in ensuring that your beliefs lie on a solid foundation.

it indicates nothing at all when you twist the meanings, except to indicate that you are just reading what you want to read, instead of what is actually there.

 

[Chalnoth]

Right, so presumably we are to assume that you do not wish to show your evidence merely because what? You're lazy? You're uninterested in examining your own beliefs in a public setting? You'd rather not hold up your reasons for believing to independent scrutiny?

Bear in mind that I am not asking here for anything that I am unwilling to provide myself. If there is a particular point of evolution that you personally find sketchy or unreasonable, I am perfectly happy to present what evidence I can muster to correct that impression, as are many others.

But I suspect that you do not wish to present your reasons for believing because you are aware, on some level, just how baseless those beliefs are and how poorly they will hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Athrond]

So a city is 'natural' because we're part of nature and it's 'natural' for us to build a city?

Yes.

 

[Split Rock]

Bethell began by pointing out that Darwinian theory is a tautology rather than a predicative theory. (The term tautology means a statement that is true by definition.)* That is, evolution is the survival of the fittest. But who are the fittest? Obviously, the individuals who survive. Thus, without an independent criterion for fitness, other than survival, we are left with the statement that evolution is the survival of the survivors. This indeed is a tautology.

This is what Darwin wrote on Natural Selection in On the Origin of Species

1. Species have great fertility. They have more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with small changes.
3. Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.
4. An implicit struggle for survival ensues.
5. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical.
6. Some of these variations directly affect the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.
7. Much of this variation is inheritable.
8. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.
9. The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.
10. This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, these variations accumulate to form new varieties, and ultimately, new species.

What part of this is a tautology?