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.
Really? What percentage probability do you assign to evolution being right?You've not present any evidence that evolution might be wrong ...
So do we.We stand on the shoulders of others.
Really? What percentage probability do you assign to evolution being right?
NB: I've asked several of your fellow evo's the same question and go no replies.
Just remember:Not only did he cross it, but he walked on water doing it. And he did so wearing a MAGA hat, carrying a Chump flag, whistling Yankee Doodle.
Really? What percentage probability do you assign to evolution being right?
NB: I've asked several of your fellow evo's the same question and go no replies.
But there is a certain rigor applied to historical methods that Christians ignore.So do we.
And while I'll agree that we shouldn't attempt to use science to validate the Bible, will you agree that you shouldn't use science to attempt to invalidate It?
After all, science and history are two different things.
Thanks, Phred. What is the difference between "strong" and "weak" emergence? And with respect to the OP: What type of emergence is "consciousness"?An emergent property is a property which a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have. A failure to realize that a property is emergent, or supervenient, leads to the fallacy of division.
In chemistry, for example, the taste of saltiness is a property of salt, but that does not mean that it is also a property of sodium and chlorine, the two elements which make up salt. Thus, saltiness is an emergent or a supervenient property of salt. Claiming that chlorine must be salty because salt is salty would be an example of the fallacy of division.
In biology, for example, heart is made of heart cells, heart cells on their own don't have the property of pumping blood. You will need the whole heart to be able to pump blood. Thus, the pumping property of the heart is an emergent or a supervenient property of the heart. Claiming that an individual heart cell can pump blood because the heart can would be an example of fallacy of division.
I did not claim to "paraphrase"; I claimed I did not "distort". Show the answer that you claim I distorted.All of the above. Especially in lieu of the discussion in the thread. Your attempts at paraphrasing aren't paraphrasing; they're distorted fabrications.
I did not claim to "paraphrase"; I claimed I did not "distort". Show the answer that you claim I distorted.
That explains a lot. I cannot argue with how you feel; only with how you think.I feel evolution to be correct ...
Then you are definitely not a scientist.Probability 100%.
That explains a lot. I cannot argue with how you feel; only with how you think.
Yes - some of the structural/organizational changes in the brain for speech are clearly evolutionary, from comparisons with close relatives, but brains don't preserve, so we don't have an ancestral record other than cranial impressions, which are of limited use. I would expect a lot more details from the genetic record, at least for relatively recent human evolution.The emergence of speech really be cannot
be explained by evolution per se.
Nobody has a inified explanation of everything,
though the goddidits manage to explain nothing.
"In the context that evolution is an observable process we see in populations of living things, 100%"What to you mean by "right"?
In the context that evolution is an observable process we see in populations of living things, 100%. I mean, it's an observable process. To deny it just doesn't make any sense. You might as well be denying gravity.
In the context of the theory of evolution being "right", that entirely depends on how one qualifies that. All scientific theories are provisional (as you have said) and represent simplified explanations for observable phenomena. So depending on how your define "right" in that context, the answer could be 0% or 100% or any number in between.
Like a crockoduck?"In the context that evolution is an observable process we see in populations of living things, 100%"
All I have observed is microevolution. In the context of the OP, have you observed in nature an animal reproduce a descendant that possessed a cognitive property not present in its parents?
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?