- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,333
- 52,693
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They use the ingredients they have at hand. You can't expect people to make a three layered, chocolate fudge cake when all they have at hand is just flour, eggs, milk and sugar and you refuse to give them the chocolate and the fudge.
In this case, "people" didn't make that cake.
God made it.
Are you talking about the article?hat is just a creationist misrepresentation of science. The reality is "the best explanation available given the evidence in hand." But nobody has any doubt that evolution is more complicated than we once assumed.
That is a very odd choice of the essayist to make. Referring to epigenetics as "Lamarckian".I have linked a few examples. Like I said generally the EES supports the idea that creatures ability to direct their own evolution towards beneficial and adaptive changes through choices and that evolution is not blind or random but geared towards certain outcomes over others which are well suited for adaptations and survival. Niche Construction, developmental plasticity and Inheritence beyond genes are examples.
But some are even directly supporting a form of Lamrackism.
The received wisdom is that parental experiences can’t affect the characters of their offspring. Except they do. The way that genes are expressed to produce an organism’s phenotype – the actual characteristics it ends up with – is affected by chemicals that attach to them. Everything from diet to air pollution to parental behaviour can influence the addition or removal of these chemical marks, which switches genes on or off. Usually these so-called ‘epigenetic’ attachments are removed during the production of sperm and eggs cells, but it turns out that some escape the resetting process and are passed on to the next generation, along with the genes.
Science in flux: is a revolution brewing in evolutionary theory? | Aeon Essays
Is evolutionary science due for a major overhaul – or is talk of ‘revolution’ misguided?aeon.co
Nope. ID is not science. People who "research" ID are not acting as scientsts. I went down the rabbit hole on that one and it's ID all the way down.Ah the good old ad hominem logical fallacy again.
I read the article a while back, which is why I speculated about your reason for posting it.Are you talking about the article?
Kevin Lalandis professor of behavioural and evolutionary biology at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, an elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and a fellow of the Society of Biology. His latest book, co-authored with Tobias Uller, is Evolutionary Causation: Biological and Philosophical Reflections (2019).
Which is exactly the problem.
You're expecting science to deal with the supernatural, when there is no way to study the supernatural in any meaningful way, and then you get fussy about it when it's pointed out.
And yes, we know what you're going to say: "ScIeNce Is MYoPiC!"
If science is going to contradict the Bible, it had better do so with the utmost of convincing evidence.
Claiming evolution, which has more missing parts than sea shells on the sea floor, doesn't cut it.
So we have established that your original assertion has been rebutted to you satisfaction?Once these single cells colonized and started making complex life what caused the diversification of all living things on earth?
I would have thought from the many posts that you already have postedIf science is going to contradict the Bible, it had better do so with the utmost of convincing evidence.
Claiming evolution, which has more missing parts than sea shells on the sea floor, doesn't cut it.
Why? Science isn't trying to convince you of anything. They are just trying to find out what happened. I don't think many of them care whether it contradicts your Bible, not even the Christians.If science is going to contradict the Bible, it had better do so with the utmost of convincing evidence.
They get to claim it as long as there isn't any evidence against it. That's how science works.Claiming evolution, which has more missing parts than sea shells on the sea floor, doesn't cut it.
The problems with worldly science, et al....
"Upon reading these various passages we can see clearly how the powers of darkness are especially related to man’s mind, how it is peculiarly susceptible to Satan’s assault. With respect to man’s will, emotion and body, the powers of evil are helpless to do anything directly unless they first have gained some ground therein. But with man’s mind they can work freely without initially persuading man or securing his invitation. The mind appears to be their possession already. The Apostle in comparing men’s minds to an enemy’s strongholds seems to imply that Satan and his wicked spirits already have established a deep relationship with the minds of men, that somehow they are using them as their bastions in which to imprison their captives. Through man’s mind they impose their authority and through the mind of their captives they transmit poisonous thoughts to others so that these too may rise up against God.
It is difficult to estimate how much of the world’s philosophy, ethics, knowledge, research, and science flow from the powers of darkness. But of one point we are certain: all arguments and proud obstacles against the knowledge of God are the fortresses of the enemy."
Thus, I mean, being "convincing" in no way indicates being truth.
I just went back and read the post.You're right.
I don't care for the word "convincing," myself; but I didn't know what word to use.
Here your creating a Strawman. I have not said that evolution was created to deny God. I said that agency has been denied and you don't have to believe in Gods creation to support the idea that humans have agency, have free will and intentional choices that can make a difference in their life and to reality itself. Even science supports this idea in different ways.This is the Big Lie of creationism, the lie on which it is based, first enunciated by Henry Morris, the founder of modern creationism:
"The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God,"
Yes and that is exactly what I am referring to. You are the one creating this false representation of my arguements. I am simply saying that living things have more of a bility to direct the outcomes of evolution or their own survival and fitness than mainstream sciences and especially the standard evolution theory give credit for.It turns out to be a problem only for those creationists who tell it, one of those self-fulfilling prophecies. Traditional Christians have a fuller understanding of teleology and don't have that problem with it.
It's quaint that you think there is such a thing as "standard evolution theory". Since research into evolution and its mechanisms is ongoing, continuously increasing in depth and breadth, it follows that the theory is dynamic and partly dependent upon the perspective of the researcher. Inasmuch as there is a standard theory it exists as an educational tool to acquaint students with the principles of the subject, not as a definitive statement of current thinking.Yes and that is exactly what I am referring to. You are the one creating this false representation of my arguements. I am simply saying that living things have more of a bility to direct the outcomes of evolution or their own survival and fitness than mainstream sciences and especially the standard evolution theory give credit for.
It's the spin, Steve. A spin put on it by that Jonathan Bartlett article. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is not something that undermines evolutionary theory. It's part of it, and the idea that the theory of evolution must be defended as pure random variation and natural selection against things like that is fatuous nonsense. Everybody knows evolution is more complicated than that, Pure random variation and natural selection is only used as a teaching tool and in certain mathematical models.Here your creating a Strawman. I have not said that evolution was created to deny God. I said that agency has been denied and you don't have to believe in Gods creation to support the idea that humans have agency, have free will and intentional choices that can make a difference in their life and to reality itself. Even science supports this idea in different ways.
Yes and that is exactly what I am referring to. You are the one creating this false representation of my arguements. I am simply saying that living things have more of a bility to direct the outcomes of evolution or their own survival and fitness than mainstream sciences and especially the standard evolution theory give credit for.
Part of that reason was to avoid any reference to teleology which includes agency being a force that can change things besides the natural forces. Because the more agency and ability of living things to direct their own evolution the less influence the natural forces like NS and random mutations have.
In some ways there is also an element of the creationist dogma with the sticking dogmnaticially to Neo Darwinism as its trying to preserve an idea that NS is all creative and can do what we would normally think impossible. It attributes far more to NS and random mutations than justified. Making it more an ideological belief, a epistemic belief about how we should believe evolution works. When there is ample evidence that its now been undermined as a theory.
Here your creating a Strawman. I have not said that evolution was created to deny God. I said that agency has been denied and you don't have to believe in Gods creation to support the idea that humans have agency, have free will and intentional choices that can make a difference in their life and to reality itself. Even science supports this idea in different ways.
You obviously don't understand the core differences between the EES and SET the standard evolutionary theory or the Modern Synthesis. Yes the EES expands evolutionary forces while continuing to support some aspects of SET which is NS, mutations, drift and population genetics.It's the spin, Steve. A spin put on it by that Jonathan Bartlett article. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is not something that undermines evolutionary theory.
The same paper addresses this as well.It's part of it, and the idea that the theory of evolution must be defended as pure random variation and natural selection against things like that is fatuous nonsense. Everybody knows evolution is more complicated than that, Pure random variation and natural selection is only used as a teaching tool and in certain mathematical models.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?