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.
It's also fun to see what kinds of social and political philosophies (or just seemingly everyday decisions) that Darwinism (old or new) inspires people to push ...
That is taking forever to load. A personal objection against terminology is a rather futile argument.
The argument was only what I stated. It was an example of a failure. The onus was on you to properly support your claims by quoting and linking.Claiming that it's taking "forever to load" is a lame excuse. Got a better one? Granted, since the articles I posted come from the UK, it might very well take 25 to 40 seconds to load. But so what? If it were me, and I knew someone was offering me a short article from the University of Cambridge, I'd hold on for the time it takes to load and read the articles. But that's me.
Be that as it may, I have a better suggestion. Just forget about it and don't bother me further about it.
The argument was only what I stated. It was an example of a failure. The onus was on you to properly support your claims by quoting and linking.
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.
No, you expect others to do your homework for you. When you refuse to use your own sources properly, and I see that you did the same on another thread, you as much as admit that you have nothing.And the onus of reading what another person says fully, accurately, and in context so that you respond to him/her appropriately ... is on YOU.
Again, I never made the error: I've never yet said something like, "...uh...well...maybe Lamarck rather than Darwin was right after all." That kind of thing wasn't even the locus of what I was honing in on.
Anyway, at this point it doesn't really matter. I'll just drop it since I'm confident that my understanding of evolution is similar to yours, and in this thread we're just critically picking up threads of "directed evolution" [a much different locus of thought] and discussing that ...
No, you expect others to do your homework for you. When you refuse to use your own sources properly, and I see that you did the same on another thread, you as much as admit that you have nothing.
My aren't you a wordy one?Oh, I see. We have different ideas about what constitutes substantive interlocution.
Yes, I most definitely DO expect others to show me "their homework." I don't give a rat's butt about their present seeming opinions or present understanding on some topic. I want to see how they've sourced and constructed their views. You guys on the other hand seem to instead want a song-and-dance demonstration as a test to see if we (Christians typically) can measure up to your acumen before you decide to engage anything we might have to either say, or, on a more minute level, bring to the table of discussion.
The fact is, you and I didn't even engage as yet. You tossed a Wikipedia article(s) at me, and I tossed something back. In my estimation, this kind of thing is but the beginning of birth-pangs in research and analysis; it's hardly the stuff of an intention to express some definitive endpoint.
So, since we didn't even get to discuss any aspects of anything related to what we thought we were focusing on, I think it's safe to say that neither of us can cite the other as being "in error." If anything, we're just talking past each other and it probably comes from us having a different idea about what constitutes substantive constructs of thought.
I will admit, though, that I intentionally meant to briefly detour this thread ... mainly because I don't see the whole panoply of evolutionary concepts (whether theoretical or applied) as anything other than a rabbit's hole. You guys, on the other hand, seem to see it as a 'done deal' with nothing really to question.
Am I wrong to think this?
Just replace natural selection with artificial selection.
My aren't you a wordy one?
But yes, evolution is pretty much a "done deal". It has been tested and confirmed continually. Minor tweaks have been done as we learn more and more. That you and I are apes is as clear as the fact that you and I are mammals.
This thread is about directed evolution. A slim straw that some still clutch at. The problem is that no one can seem to find any evidence for it.
I will admit, though, that I intentionally meant to briefly detour this thread ... mainly because I don't see the whole panoply of evolutionary concepts (whether theoretical or applied) as anything other than a rabbit's hole.
Perhaps you should look up "antibiotic protocols." Seems like a practical idea to me.
This thread is about directed evolution. A slim straw that some still clutch at. The problem is that no one can seem to find any evidence for it.
Why would I need to do that?
No sense reading beyond this point. You are an anti-science zealot and lacking in any relevant education or background.Evolution is not science.
Question begging and perhaps a strawman.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?
Question begging and perhaps a strawman.
Philosophy is really something.
Question begging and perhaps a strawman.
Philosophy is really something.
Making anything that does not occur naturally is
messing with God's domain.
I heard about that
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?