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.
Predators seem to be opportunists.From an evolutionary perspective? None.
Predators seem to be opportunists.
It may be the lion catches the fastest and most alert.
Whoever happens to be closest.
First problem is that irreducible complexity doesn't exist. It's been repeatedly proposed but never demonstrated.I think this is indicative of the problem you arrive at, when you refuse to model agency, as part of the Evolutionary change.
Agency is what takes advantage of the irreducibly complex, and gives it a function that doesn't cause to survive, once, but many times.
If you are a predator and you overlook agency, successful hunts are few and far between.
This needs to be addressed at the level of attraction too, if your mating ritual doesn't account for agency, your mate isn't going to understand your intent.
In short, it is not productive at all, in any qualifiable way, to proceed without adding "agency" to the model (of life).
IC might exist, the Quest is a perfectly good sport for those so inclined.First problem is that irreducible complexity doesn't exist. It's been repeatedly proposed but never demonstrated.
Secondly evolutionary change happens on the scale of populations and over generations so agency does not apply. Pointing out that agency doesn't exist on that scale doesn't mean that agency isn't important on other scales and in other contexts.
I think that is giving the creators of IC far too much credit. It's origin is bad faith arguments and logical fallacies.IC might exist, the Quest is a perfectly good sport for those so inclined.
Claiming its been demonstrated , though, is definitely premature.
Its being awfully generous but your absolute does not workI think that is giving the creators of IC far too much credit. It's origin is bad faith arguments and logical fallacies.
How so?Its being awfully generous but your absolute does not work
sorry ah, i mean to say the idea that there could beHow so?
The loose concept of Intelligent Design of either life or the Universe in general may well be a goal for people who want to find a scientific styled explanation for creation.
IC is different, it was specifically proposed by Discovery Institute members and declared to be evidence to justify ID.
It is very relevant when you pretend to be able to discuss science.Irrelevant. I know what God has to say on the subject.
Evolution is not science. So I can discuss the subject logically and reasonably, unlike people that start with an unproveable assumption that life just somehow spontaneously appeared. What part of that is scientific? Evolution cannot be demonstrated, OOL is floundering still after 70 years of research, vast amounts of evidence suggests that evolution is impossible, yet that does not shake the faith of pro evolutionists. The only argument I've heard from evolutionists is that it happened because it happened. If that's what you call science, sorry, I don't agree.It is very relevant when you pretend to be able to discuss science.
Thanks for admitting yet again that you have no business doing so.
Appears that you have been misled to believe that the ToE makes claims on OoL. Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time. Creationists are the only group promoting OoL nonsense in an obvious attempt to discredit evolutiony science. If you want an intelligible understanding of OoL here are 10 Theories of Origin of Life, none of which have anything to do with the theory of evolution.Evolution is not science. So I can discuss the subject logically and reasonably, unlike people that start with an unproveable assumption that life just somehow spontaneously appeared. What part of that is scientific? Evolution cannot be demonstrated, OOL is floundering still after 70 years of research, vast amounts of evidence suggests that evolution is impossible, yet that does not shake the faith of pro evolutionists. The only argument I've heard from evolutionists is that it happened because it happened. If that's what you call science, sorry, I don't agree.
Appears that you have been misled to believe that the ToE makes claims on OoL. Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time. Creationists are the only group promoting OoL nonsense in an obvious attempt to discredit evolutiony science. If you want an intelligible understanding of OoL here are 10 Theories of Origin of Life, none of which have anything to do with the theory of evolution.
So I can discuss the subject logically and reasonably, unlike people that start with an unproveable assumption that life just somehow spontaneously appeared.
You're leaving me to infer a lot. My inferences would be:
* directed evolution is seen as a legitimate type of selection pressure
* directed evolution is selection pressure, not a model of selection pressure
* directed evolution does not model other selection pressures
Don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. OOL and evolution are inextricably entwined. It does not take a Mensa level intellect to work out that life had to appear if it was to evolve. Since most evolutionists dismiss God as Creator, there is only one other option as to how life formed. It is the principle of "just happened", hardly scientific. OOL and evolutionists are masters at making assumptions. Hoyle thought it came from space. OK, where did that life come from?Appears that you have been misled to believe that the ToE makes claims on OoL. Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time. Creationists are the only group promoting OoL nonsense in an obvious attempt to discredit evolutiony science. If you want an intelligible understanding of OoL here are 10 Theories of Origin of Life, none of which have anything to do with the theory of evolution.
Don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. OOL and evolution are inextricably entwined. It does not take a Mensa level intellect to work out that life had to appear if it was to evolve. Since most evolutionists dismiss God as Creator, there is only one other option as to how life formed. It is the principle of "just happened", hardly scientific. OOL and evolutionists are masters at making assumptions. Hoyle thought it came from space. OK, where did that life come from?
Anyway, enough. It's just a time waste trying to talk to evolutionists.
He could have. He did not. How do I know? He said so.Why couldn't God have caused life to appear and then designed a process whereby it would flourish? Why do you think that either of those denies the existence of God?
He could have. He did not. How do I know? He said so.
That's a silly remark. If I wanted to know everything about say, an electric vehicle, I would speak to the designer. He could tell me why he chose AC or DC systems, what decided the choice of batteries and everything else that I wanted to know. God is Creator. I've checked out what He has to say about His creation.Then it might be prudent to let everyone know that you understand Genesis to be taken as a literal explanation for life. It would save a lot of time discussing scientific aspects of evolution if we knew that you reject any science whatsoever that contradicts creationism.
As you said, 'It just happened' is hardly a scientifically valid comment. But it seems that it's sufficient for you from a theological perspective. So be it. But that's all that needs to be said.
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?