Someone has a post-Evolutional adaptation - do you still query their Evolution?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So, a simple question, really:

Someone has a post-Evolutional adaptation - do you still query their Evolution?

How?

• Greater sexual selection, among those who doubt "Evolution" and those who think "Evolution is not without limits"?
• Freer adaptation, concerning a world in which there is one dominant species?
• Welcome grafting, before and after, into a predetermination of greater flourishing and number?

All these things add up to a peak Evolution, that struggles to be adopted by those who want to remain Evolutional??
The peak window, for Evolution, has to be post dated, at some point???

If the theory of Evolution remains unmodified, it can be anticipated, by a post-Evolutional adaptation????

It seems the only alternative is to welcome Design, into Evolution - post-adaptationally?????

 

[Strathos]

Are you deliberately trying to make as little sense as possible?

 

[Eloy Craft]

I'm not sure if I understand your point. But, I don't think adaptation within a species is the issue. A single adaptation that results in a new species is required for your scenario to work I think.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hi there,

So, a simple question, really:

Someone has a post-Evolutional adaptation - do you still query their Evolution?

How?

• Greater sexual selection, among those who doubt "Evolution" and those who think "Evolution is not without limits"?
• Freer adaptation, concerning a world in which there is one dominant species?
• Welcome grafting, before and after, into a predetermination of greater flourishing and number?

All these things add up to a peak Evolution, that struggles to be adopted by those who want to remain Evolutional??
The peak window, for Evolution, has to be post dated, at some point???

If the theory of Evolution remains unmodified, it can be anticipated, by a post-Evolutional adaptation????

It seems the only alternative is to welcome Design, into Evolution - post-adaptationally?????

If humanity is evolving, it is backwards. Teenagers communicate with unintelligible grunts, like cave men supposedly did. People communicate with emojis - just like the ancient Egyptians. Try getting change from a cashier who has to work it out mentally. Not to mention the lack of spelling and grammar skills nowadays. You don't agree? Re-read your post. I rest my case.

 

[stevevw]

Hi there,

So, a simple question, really:

Someone has a post-Evolutional adaptation - do you still query their Evolution?

How?

• Greater sexual selection, among those who doubt "Evolution" and those who think "Evolution is not without limits"?
• Freer adaptation, concerning a world in which there is one dominant species?
• Welcome grafting, before and after, into a predetermination of greater flourishing and number?

All these things add up to a peak Evolution, that struggles to be adopted by those who want to remain Evolutional??
The peak window, for Evolution, has to be post dated, at some point???

If the theory of Evolution remains unmodified, it can be anticipated, by a post-Evolutional adaptation????

It seems the only alternative is to welcome Design, into Evolution - post-adaptationally?????

Are you basically saying that the adaptive view of evolution where undirected and random modifications have created everything we see is not enough to account for what we see? That there has to be something beyond this adaptive view. Something which equates to some form of a design hypothesis behind all living things. That is more deterministic and equips life with the ability to adapt and survive on planet earth.

 

[Speedwell]

Are you basically saying that the adaptive view of evolution where undirected and random modifications have created everything we see is not enough to account for what we see?

No, I don't that's what Gottservant is saying. I think that's what you haven't quite had the courage to say in your EES thread in the Science forum.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I may be ignorant but I can't conceive of an adaptation that can beat the possession of an intellect..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Still not making any single attempt to actually learn about evolution I see.

 

[stevevw]

No, I don't that's what Gottservant is saying. I think that's what you haven't quite had the courage to say in your EES thread in the Science forum.

Wasnt I speaking to Gottservant. How did you think the post was directed at you. I am sure you are stalking me lol.

The other thread is only about science and was posted in a scientific thread. Do you ever see scientists with faith declare their faith in scientific articles? Why inject a religious theme into a scientific thread when it has nothing to do with the science. Are you saying that all scientists have to declare they are religious in any scientific article they write?

Everyone knows my position and I am not afraid to acknowledge that. But I don't think mixing the two is wise as it then sidetracks the whole debate as what had happened in that other debate. I was having a hard enough time as it was let alone making it worse by you lot. But this thread has a completely different topic and is not purely about science so therefore it is relevant to speak about such things.

 

[driewerf]

Hi there,

So, a simple question, really:

Someone has a post-Evolutional adaptation - do you still query their Evolution?

How?

• Greater sexual selection, among those who doubt "Evolution" and those who think "Evolution is not without limits"?
• Freer adaptation, concerning a world in which there is one dominant species?
• Welcome grafting, before and after, into a predetermination of greater flourishing and number?

All these things add up to a peak Evolution, that struggles to be adopted by those who want to remain Evolutional??
The peak window, for Evolution, has to be post dated, at some point???

If the theory of Evolution remains unmodified, it can be anticipated, by a post-Evolutional adaptation????

It seems the only alternative is to welcome Design, into Evolution - post-adaptationally?????

From the text above it is very obvious that you don't know anything about the Theory of Evolution.
Here are two resources to learn about it.
Welcome to Evolution 101!

 

[Speedwell]

Wasnt I speaking to Gottservant. How did you think the post was directed at you. I am sure you are stalking me lol.

The other thread is only about science and was posted in a scientific thread. Do you ever see scientists with faith declare their faith in scientific articles? Why inject a religious theme into a scientific thread when it has nothing to do with the science. Are you saying that all scientists have to declare they are religious in any scientific article they write?

Everyone knows my position and I am not afraid to acknowledge that. But I don't think mixing the two is wise as it then sidetracks the whole debate as what had happened in that other debate. I was having a hard enough time as it was let alone making it worse by you lot. But this thread has a completely different topic and is not purely about science so therefore it is relevant to speak about such things.

What makes you think I was talking about religion?

 

[stevevw]

What makes you think I was talking about religion?

I don't know maybe its the continual insinuation along those lines. It's always about science and religion be it creationism, IDism, or some other non-scientific idea. Either way, it doesn't really matter as it is a logical fallacy.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know maybe its the continual insinuation along those lines. It's always about science and religion be it creationism, IDism, or some other non-scientific idea. Either way, it doesn't really matter as it is a logical fallacy.

That's what this forum is about: science and religion. More particularly, it's about religious beliefs which are challenged by science. It could be beliefs about the interpretation of scripture, or (in your case) beliefs about what you consider to be the teleological inadequacy of "random and undirected" evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

Wasnt I speaking to Gottservant. How did you think the post was directed at you. I am sure you are stalking me lol.

The other thread is only about science and was posted in a scientific thread. Do you ever see scientists with faith declare their faith in scientific articles? Why inject a religious theme into a scientific thread when it has nothing to do with the science. Are you saying that all scientists have to declare they are religious in any scientific article they write?

Everyone knows my position and I am not afraid to acknowledge that. But I don't think mixing the two is wise as it then sidetracks the whole debate as what had happened in that other debate. I was having a hard enough time as it was let alone making it worse by you lot. But this thread has a completely different topic and is not purely about science so therefore it is relevant to speak about such things.

The problem is that you try to use science to further your religious agenda.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Teenagers communicate with unintelligible grunts, like cave men supposedly did. People communicate with emojis - just like the ancient Egyptians. Try getting change from a cashier who has to work it out mentally. Not to mention the lack of spelling and grammar skills nowadays.

Lol! People have been making similar complaints about the corruption and decay of society since the Ancient Greeks & Egyptians.

 

[Allandavid]

Lol! People have been making similar complaints about the corruption and decay of society since the Ancient Greeks & Egyptians.

Dead right...

“
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”

Socrates....!!

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi there,
So, a simple question, really:
Someone has a post-Evolutional adaptation - do you still query their Evolution?

????? ????????? //?????
( Gottservant is not reading this thread by-the-way. )

 

[Gottservant]

????? ????????? //?????
( Gottservant is not reading this thread by-the-way. )

I read threads, at the end of the week (I hope that doesn't inconvenience you).

The point is, if the selection pressure is for Evolution to be presented as interesting: the adaptation needs to be a little fun.

But if you are adapting for fun, it is no longer Evolution: but post-Evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I read threads, at the end of the week (I hope that doesn't inconvenience you).

The point is, if the selection pressure is for Evolution to be presented as interesting: the adaptation needs to be a little fun.

But if you are adapting for fun, it is no longer Evolution: but post-Evolution.

But evolution doesn't happen for fun, for poops and giggles. Evolution happens because the environment, either through pressure from outside that environment or within the environment, the being is in forces it to change.

 

[Gottservant]

But evolution doesn't happen for fun, for poops and giggles. Evolution happens because the environment, either through pressure from outside that environment or within the environment, the being is in forces it to change.

The pressure is to find a mate, that wants to have the children of a Evolutionist, based on how interesting he can make "evolution"?

Or are you saying that once you believe in Evolution, mates want to have children with you, regardless of how interesting you or those like you are able to make it? That doesn't make sense?