So what selection pressure do I have to watch out for, that might make me a monkey?

[True Scotsman]

People who get on Gottservant's case about "individuals don't evolve, populations do" are just showing their ignorance about religious beliefs.

Something I've learned to expect around here.

Whether it is his religious belief or not is irrelevant. He's wrong.

 

[crjmurray]

People who get on Gottservant's case about "individuals don't evolve, populations do" are just showing their ignorance about religious beliefs.

Something I've learned to expect around here.

I have to disagree with you there. Gottservant has had plenty of opportunity to voice his religious beliefs in his many threads. When Gott comes on here and talks about evolution, we assume he's talking about the actual science. You can't blame us for talking about the science if the conversation is, unknown to us, actually about an obscure religious belief.

 

[crjmurray]

Whether it is his religious belief or not is irrelevant. He's wrong.

It would clarify the point.

 

[RealityCheck01]

People who get on Gottservant's case about "individuals don't evolve, populations do" are just showing their ignorance about religious beliefs.

Sorry, AV1611VET, but evolution is that populations evolve so Gottservant's display of ignorance about evolution in thread title is a fact.
That Gottservant or anyone else could turn into a monkey during their lifetime via evolution is so ridiculous an idea that I assumed that the thread title humorous and the thread was about populations and many generations. Maybe I was wrong !

 

[AV1611VET]

I have to disagree with you there. Gottservant has had plenty of opportunity to voice his religious beliefs in his many threads. When Gott comes on here and talks about evolution, we assume he's talking about the actual science. You can't blame us for talking about the science if the conversation is, unknown to us, actually about an obscure religious belief.

But he frames them as questions.

Yes, maybe telling him over and over that populations evolve, not individuals can get a bit tedious; but after all, how many times do we Christians have to basically tell people, in so many words, GOD DID IT, before they get the message?

 

[AV1611VET]

Whether it is his religious belief or not is irrelevant. He's wrong.

Okay, he's wrong.

I've been called "wrong" as well.

It doesn't mean we're lying though.

 

[crjmurray]

But he frames them as questions.

Yes, maybe telling him over and over that populations evolve, not individuals can get a bit tedious; but after all, how many times do we Christians have to basically tell people, in so many words, GOD DID IT, before they get the message?

Let's look at it this way AV. We've all been assuming that Gott has been talking about science. People tell him he's wrong and the threads don't last very long. But if, after all this time, he was talking about evolution in relation to his religion the threads would last longer and we would have been a discussion.

 

[crjmurray]

But he frames them as questions.

Yes, maybe telling him over and over that populations evolve, not individuals can get a bit tedious; but after all, how many times do we Christians have to basically tell people, in so many words, GOD DID IT, before they get the message?

Also, you're one of the few that defers to the argument of GOD DID IT. Most try dishonest tactics and act as if they're ignorant of things that have been explained to them. I understood when I was a lurker that GOD DID IT was the basis of your arguments against science and I'm fine with that. At least it's honest.

 

[crjmurray]

Okay, he's wrong.

I've been called "wrong" as well.

It doesn't mean we're lying though.

There are those here who do lie.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, maybe telling him over and over that populations evolve, not individuals can get a bit tedious; but after all, how many times do we Christians have to basically tell people, in so many words, GOD DID IT, before they get the message?

No, AV1611VET: A scientific definition is not a religious belief. You cannot compare them.
Gottservant should already know from his own education and be able to learn from the first statement of the definition of evolution that it applies to populations, not individuals and so avoid unfortunate thread titles.
As soon as anyone says "GOD DID IT" it is known that this is a religious belief that has nothing to do scientific definitions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gottservant should already know from his own education and be able to learn from the first statement of the definition of evolution that it applies to populations, not individuals and so avoid unfortunate thread titles.

Suit yourself.

I'm not the one complaining someone is posting the same things over and over.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

So what selection pressure do I have to watch out for, that might make me a monkey?[/b]

I know it's counter-intuitive, but a world wide shortage of bananas.

If that ever happens, everyone turns into a monkey within a week. I look forward to the day.

 

[morse86]

According to wikipedia, Science is....

The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.

Tell me how evolution can be observed, tested, repeated etc. If it isn't science according to the definiton of science, it's religion.

 

[crjmurray]

According to wikipedia, Science is....

Tell me how evolution can be observed, tested, repeated etc. If it isn't science according to the definiton of science, it's religion.

Wrong thread morse

 

[RealityCheck01]

Suit yourself.

Suit myself about what, AV1611VET?
Gottservant's inability to understand what evolution is that leads to incorrect thread titles?

I know that you are not the one complaining someone is posting the same things over and over. That is the other posters. If I knew more about Gottservant's posting habits then it could also be me.

 

[RealityCheck01]

According to wikipedia, Science is....
...

You do know that evolution is a scientific theory backed op by an enormous amount of evidence, morse86?
If you have problems with that then start a new thread rather then derail this one.

 

[crjmurray]

Suit myself about what, AV1611VET?
Gottservant's inability to understand what evolution is that leads to incorrect thread titles?

I know that you are not the one complaining someone is posting the same things over and over. That is the other posters. If I knew more about Gottservant's posting habits then it could also be me.

Ease up. We're at a point where Gott may be able to explain his odd questions on evolution. Let's wait for that.

 

[katerinah1947]

According to wikipedia, Science is....

Tell me how evolution can be observed, tested, repeated etc. If it isn't science according to the definiton of science, it's religion.

Hi,
I am so much a scientist. My age means I am retired. It does not mean I have changed. I've seen some of their data. It is most compelling, and it is no threat to God. Compelling in the scientific sense would be translated to the nomal sense, as fact. We scientists have a different view of facts like this. And that view is so esoteric (hard to understand outside of the few who use that term in this world we live in.) that it can be easily misunderstood. Their observed and repeatable evidence is there.
If I dig down, and find the same patterns they do, all around the world. That is the repeat part you are asking about.
A testing of evolution, is to see if the pattern, of evolution, in those layers is ever different anywhere when tested. It is not. No matter how many times you test what they have found the answers are always the same. In the esoterica of science it is said this way. It is the same so far. (Yet you cannot use those words as pu there, unless you are me or like me, in training and experience as those are said practically in code. It is one of the reasons, scientists say little. They are misunderstood so much of the time.)
Religion, is normally about this version of God existing and you should believe that, and it is also that, this other version of God existing and you should believe that. Religion is about some version of a god existing, and why usually, everyone should believe in that particular version of a god.
...Kate.,

 

[morse86]

Hi,
I am so much a scientist. My age means I am retired. It does not mean I have changed. I've seen some of their data. It is most compelling, and it is no threat to God. Compelling in the scientific sense would be translated to the nomal sense, as fact. We scientists have a different view of facts like this. And that view is so esoteric (hard to understand outside of the few who use that term in this world we live in.) that it can be easily misunderstood. Their observed and repeatable evidence is there.
If I dig down, and find the same patterns they do, all around the world. That is the repeat part you are asking about.
A testing of evolution, is to see if the pattern, of evolution, in those layers is ever different anywhere when tested. It is not. No matter how many times you test what they have found the answers are always the same. In the esoterica of science it is said this way. It is the same so far. (Yet you cannot use those words as pu there, unless you are me or like me, in training and experience as those are said practically in code. It is one of the reasons, scientists say little. They are misunderstood so much of the time.)
Religion, is normally about this version of God existing and you should believe that, and it is also that, this other version of God existing and you should believe that. Religion is about some version of a god existing, and why usually, everyone should believe in that particular version of a god.
...Kate.,

No, that is not testable or repeatable. You just find a bone in the dirt/layer and say it is "repeated/tested". That's not science. That's just an observation.

Testing and repeating is when you actually turn a monkey into a human. Or a dinosaur into a bird.

Please show us your experiments that you have done to test and repeat turning monkeys into humans or dinosaurs into birds.

You know what, just show us an experiment where you created life out of a rock (not 1 or 2 amino acids)

 

[crjmurray]

Hi,
I am so much a scientist. My age means I am retired. It does not mean I have changed. I've seen some of their data. It is most compelling, and it is no threat to God. Compelling in the scientific sense would be translated to the nomal sense, as fact. We scientists have a different view of facts like this. And that view is so esoteric (hard to understand outside of the few who use that term in this world we live in.) that it can be easily misunderstood. Their observed and repeatable evidence is there.
If I dig down, and find the same patterns they do, all around the world. That is the repeat part you are asking about.
A testing of evolution, is to see if the pattern, of evolution, in those layers is ever different anywhere when tested. It is not. No matter how many times you test what they have found the answers are always the same. In the esoterica of science it is said this way. It is the same so far. (Yet you cannot use those words as pu there, unless you are me or like me, in training and experience as those are said practically in code. It is one of the reasons, scientists say little. They are misunderstood so much of the time.)
Religion, is normally about this version of God existing and you should believe that, and it is also that, this other version of God existing and you should believe that. Religion is about some version of a god existing, and why usually, everyone should believe in that particular version of a god.
...Kate.,

Not for this thread