• 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.

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,040
15,635
72
Bondi
✟369,241.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

This is a thread about one aspect of the evolutionary process. If you don't even think that evolution itself happened, even under God's direction, then can you explain why you feel the need to join a thread to effectively say 'Hey, I'm a creationist!'
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,389
1,169
KW
✟145,443.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. OOL and evolution are inextricably entwined.
I agree that are evolution and life are intricately involve but not in the way that creationist misinformation has led you to believe. They are involved due to evolutionist's dependence on the last universal common ancestor or the LUCA. Any one of the 10 plausible theories for Ool in the linked article could serve that purpose.
It does not take a Mensa level intellect to work out that life had to appear if it was to evolve.
No disagreement there. See above.
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.
Again you have been misled by creationist misinformation. It is not evolutionists or scientists that dismiss God as Creation it is the fact that science is quiet about deities for the very simple reason that deities are not subject to the scientific method.
Hoyle thought it came from space. OK, where did that life come from?
I am sure Hoyle or any particular scientist speak for ALL scientists.
Anyway, enough. It's just a time waste trying to talk to evolutionists.
Sorry I gave you the impression that I evolutionist. I am not a scientist unless you include the social sciences. Perhaps it would be better to check out other well know scientists like Dr. Kenneth Miller before you making general statements about "evolutionists' beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,572
11,470
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,787.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Being that 'nature' doesn't have sentience by which to induce selection (as far as I know), it's been my inclination to think that the attempt by scientiests to grab the reigns of speciation won't end up being a walk in the park but rather a descent into the dark.

But do I know this? I don't. But then again, I don't think that scientists 'know' it either---OR at least not fully.

And I hate to be FRANK, but where this kind of thing is being done, and despite that I think the field of Epigenetics has some interesting stuff in it over which to ponder, where Directed Evolution is concerned I can't help but to flitter in my thoughts to things written by Mary Shelley or Richard Matheson.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,082.00
Faith
Atheist
Would you consider it part of the designer's job to be involved with the mining, smelting, synthesising, manufacturing, etc. of the materials and components needed for his project - or would you say his job starts when the materials he needs are available?

The argument from incredulity is a fallacy of ignorance.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Of course life had to appear if it evolved. So what? You are making the error of assuming that evolution requires abiogenesis. It does not. It could have been poofed into existence by a god. It could have been alien seeding. Or most likely of all it could have arisen naturally. But it does not require life to have arisen naturally and that is where you lose the debate.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Natural selection does not need an intelligence. And it is regularly observed. You may be making the error of assuming that species were specific goals of evolution when they are merely a result.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,572
11,470
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,787.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Natural selection does not need an intelligence. And it is regularly observed. You may be making the error of assuming that species were specific goals of evolution when they are merely a result.

Yes, I'm fully aware that "natural selection" as Darwin conceived of it does not need intelligence. I was implying something more analytic about the term he chose ... that his term tends to confuse the common layman.

So, no. I've made no error so far.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The only layman that I have observed being confused were people that try not to understand the concept. In other words you are still in error. Like those that refuse to understand the fact of natural selection you may be refusing to see your own errors.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,572
11,470
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,787.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

You can't say that I'm in error if you don't even understand what it is I'm going to dig at.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,572
11,470
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,787.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I could quote your previous post and break it down. But if you cannot make your message clear that is an error in itself.

Then, I'll elucidate: I think that any scientist who meddles inordinately with genetics is trying to do something Un-Natural. There is NO selection in nature and to attempt selection is to do so artificially and to be stepping into God's domain. It's one thing to observe the genome of whichever organism; but it's another thing altogether to screw around with it.

Is that clearer?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,082.00
Faith
Atheist
Clearer, and more clearly wrong. There is selection in nature, and it happens in all populations of creatures. That you would deny it suggests that you don't understand what it is...
 
Reactions: Astrid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,572
11,470
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,787.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Clearer, and more clearly wrong. There is selection in nature, and it happens in all populations of creatures.

I wouldn't call that 'selection,' and I think Darwin's attempt to analogize as he did, after borrowing concepts from animal husbandry and the like, wasn't quite 'meet' for was actually defaults among competing organisms in nature. The survival of an organism--or a population as is usually the case--isn't hand picked by nature. It's a default to survival among those populations that are most well suited to their environment.

Nature doesn't select. And we need to be careful in how we attempt to artificially select and/or modify existing species.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,572
11,470
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,787.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Clearer, and more clearly wrong. There is selection in nature, and it happens in all populations of creatures. That you would deny it suggests that you don't understand what it is...

Also, @FrumiousBandersnatch and @Subduction Zone, if you think I'm wrong on something, rather than simply and flatly telling me I'm wrong and silently sitting back and watching what you think will be a tail-spin out of control on my part, plunging down in error ...

...why don't you guys do the virtuous thing and provide me with pin-pointed sources wherein you think I'll find the 'correct' view and/or info. Besides, I'd love to add whatever sources you guys refer to my existing academic bibs.
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,332
385
Midwest
✟126,025.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

The scientific language we use definitely comes from a more progressive, positivist era. At that time it meant exactly what you are saying. But, as I noted in the other thread, over time people have tried to strip out those meanings rather than change to a more appropriate word. It does create a confused language, but there is a case to be made for sticking with traditional terms.

But it's all over science. Terms like "law" or (artificial) "intelligence". Sometimes it even goes meta as with genetic optimizers in computer science.

I hated that taxonomy chose to use Latin when I was in high school biology, but looking back I can see some keen insight in making that choice.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,572
11,470
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,787.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

So much for the wide field of Analytic Philosophy. We might as well burn the whole batch then ... leave the venture of finding (and defining) all of the answers of life that can be found to scientists.

Excuse me while I go burn some books ...
 
Reactions: J_B_
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Now you are using an equivocation fallacy. Like it or not words often have more than one meaning. You demand that an intelligence is needed for selection, but that is only based upon your biased choice of definitions. Natural selection is well defined and so constantly observed that it has been claimed to be a tautology.

Natural Selection

Natural selection - Wikipedia

Those articles should help you with the basics. But thinking that you can disprove a concept just because you disagree with a definition is an almost impossible debate to win.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So much for the wide field of Analytic Philosophy. We might as well burn the whole batch then ... leave the venture of finding (and defining) all of the answers of life that can be found to scientists.

Excuse me while I go burn some books ...
When it comes to a scientific discussion the scientists are going to fare best. If one wants a philosophical discussion one goes to philosophers. How life evolved is well understood and scientists keep learning more and more every day.

Do you have a particular objection to evolution aside from the terminology that is used?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,572
11,470
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,787.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

See? You're still no getting what I'm saying because you're not paying attention to the contexts of what I'm building on.

So, I'll see your items and deliver one of my own. This is all I'm attempting to get at. If you want to make more of it, be my guest:

Natural Selection: the trouble with terminology Part I
Survival of the fittest: the trouble with terminology Part II
 
Upvote 0