Evolution creates a selection pressure, to make things interesting

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I wonder if you follow me on this logic:

1. Evolution is a theory which reflects the truth
2. But the truth over time, is boring
3. Thus a selection pressure has been created: to make things interesting.

Those that make things interesting will more easily find a mate, and those that can't make things interesting, will be tempted to drop the theory - because it gets in the way of making things interesting when all you do is repeat that you believe its the truth.

Sense?

This suggests David Attenborough is evolved? Because he has a knack for making nature interesting?

 

[disciple Clint]

Hi there,

So I wonder if you follow me on this logic:

1. Evolution is a theory which reflects the truth
2. But the truth over time, is boring
3. Thus a selection pressure has been created: to make things interesting.

Those that make things interesting will more easily find a mate, and those that can't make things interesting, will be tempted to drop the theory - because it gets in the way of making things interesting when all you do is repeat that you believe its the truth.

Sense?

This suggests David Attenborough is evolved? Because he has a knack for making nature interesting?

1. Evolution is a theory which reflects the truth

we need to stop here. there is no proof for macro evolution. Therefore it is not truth.

 

[Gottservant]

I would say Evolution is a proxy truth.

It does not set out meaning, as Jesus did.

But as to species changing traits of prowess over time, I don't think you can argue that is not for a reason?

God wants us to have great Evolution!

 

[disciple Clint]

I would say Evolution is a proxy truth.

It does not set out meaning, as Jesus did.

But as to species changing traits of prowess over time, I don't think you can argue that is not for a reason?

God wants us to have great Evolution!

I would say Evolution is a proxy truth.

What exactly is "proxy truth" isn't it enough to have "my truth" and "your truth" in relativism, now we must have "proxy truth" and I suppose you would call that evolution of truth.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

This severely stretches the utility of evolutionary theory (as does most evolutionary psychology, IMO). The Theory of Evolution is a model of observations that attempts to explain those observations. That's it. Conclusions drawn from it must be consistent with that model. That "truth over time is boring" has nothing to do with that model. From that point you're just making things up and attributing them to "evolution" or some perverted facsimile of it you have in your head. It is possible, however unlikely, that this model is wrong. It's open for falsification to whom ever wishes to present evidence to peer-review that might shift the scientific consensus.

 

[jayem]

Hi there,

So I wonder if you follow me on this logic:

1. Evolution is a theory which reflects the truth
2. But the truth over time, is boring
3. Thus a selection pressure has been created: to make things interesting.

Those that make things interesting will more easily find a mate, and those that can't make things interesting, will be tempted to drop the theory - because it gets in the way of making things interesting when all you do is repeat that you believe its the truth.

Sense?

This suggests David Attenborough is evolved? Because he has a knack for making nature interesting?

I don't follow this at all.

And why do you think truth is boring? This makes no sense to me.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi there,

So I wonder if you follow me on this logic:

1. Evolution is a theory which reflects the truth
2. But the truth over time, is boring
3. Thus a selection pressure has been created: to make things interesting.

Those that make things interesting will more easily find a mate, and those that can't make things interesting, will be tempted to drop the theory - because it gets in the way of making things interesting when all you do is repeat that you believe its the truth.

Sense?

This suggests David Attenborough is evolved? Because he has a knack for making nature interesting?

Ya, you lost me on #2 as well.
Perhaps #2 explains why we have dreams then.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hi there,

So I wonder if you follow me on this logic:

1. Evolution is a theory which reflects the truth
2. But the truth over time, is boring
3. Thus a selection pressure has been created: to make things interesting.

Those that make things interesting will more easily find a mate, and those that can't make things interesting, will be tempted to drop the theory - because it gets in the way of making things interesting when all you do is repeat that you believe its the truth.

Sense?

This suggests David Attenborough is evolved? Because he has a knack for making nature interesting?

To be honest, I can kind of see where you're coming from at the beginning, but then you really make a mess of it at the end.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hi there,

So I wonder if you follow me on this logic:

1. Evolution is a theory which reflects the truth
2. But the truth over time, is boring
3. Thus a selection pressure has been created: to make things interesting.

Those that make things interesting will more easily find a mate, and those that can't make things interesting, will be tempted to drop the theory - because it gets in the way of making things interesting when all you do is repeat that you believe its the truth.

Sense?

This suggests David Attenborough is evolved? Because he has a knack for making nature interesting?

I think neither of the premises are correct: #1 evolution is a theory that models our observations, #2 seems vacuous; whether something is boring is a subjective evaluation.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. You need another premise (or premises) relating selection pressure and boredom.

Nonsense.

 

[durangodawood]

we need to stop here. there is no proof for macro evolution.......

This is true.

All the vast evidence could have been faked by a deceiver deity. So correct, no proof.

 

[durangodawood]

...
2. But the truth over time, is boring
3. Thus a selection pressure has been created: to make things interesting
....

I like this idea that the grand mechanisms of nature respond and self-modify according to the whims of my personal feelings.

Wow I'm important!

 

[disciple Clint]

This is true.

All the vast evidence could have been faked by a deceiver deity. So correct, no proof.

Also no evidence because there was no macro evolution. You are welcome to try to find some if you like.

 

[durangodawood]

...You are welcome to try to find some if you like.

Thank you for your generous permission!

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[jayem]

Also no evidence because there was no macro evolution. You are welcome to try to find some if you like.

Where is the evidence that seed-bearing plants, trees, and other vegetation existed before the sun, moon, and stars? For that matter, what's the evidence that the earth, and liquid water were present before the sun?

And by evidence, I mean something other than an ancient legend.

 

[disciple Clint]

Where is the evidence that seed-bearing plants, trees, and other vegetation existed before the sun, moon, and stars? For that matter, what's the evidence that the earth, and liquid water were present before the sun?

And by evidence, I mean something other than an ancient legend.

Did God Really Create Plants Before the Sun?

 

[jayem]

Did God Really Create Plants Before the Sun?

Doesn't answer my question. Just as you want convincing evidence for the evolution of species, I want such evidence for a 6 day supernatural creation. Not some absurdly contrived attempt to reconcile an ancient myth with modern scientific principles.

 

[disciple Clint]

Doesn't answer my question. Just as you want convincing evidence for the evolution of species, I want such evidence for a 6 day supernatural creation. Not some absurdly contrived attempt to reconcile an ancient myth with modern scientific principles.

The Bible is not a science book. Since you seem to be a man of science I have provided links that provide scientific evidence for the existence of God. Both sites are provided by a recognized man of science. Robert J. Spitzer (born May 16, 1952) who is a Jesuit priest, philosopher, educator, author, speaker, and retired President of Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington. His academic specialties are (1) Philosophy of Science, particularly space-time theory and transcendent implications of contemporary Big Bang cosmology, (2) metaphysics, particularlythe theory of time and philosophy of God, and (3) organizational ethics and its relationship to personal and cultural transformation. He has also studied leadership, historical exegesis of the New Testament, the life issues, and philosophy of culture
Caution some of this is very deep so if you are not a PhD you might have difficulty following along.
Evidence of God from Science | Credible Catholic
Faith, Science, and Reason: Collected Articles - Magis Center

http://carmelcommunications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Fr.-Spitzer-Long-Bio.pdf

 

[jayem]

The Bible is not a science book. Since you seem to be a man of science I have provided links that provide scientific evidence for the existence of God. Both sites are provided by a recognized man of science. Robert J. Spitzer (born May 16, 1952) who is a Jesuit priest, philosopher, educator, author, speaker, and retired President of Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington. His academic specialties are (1) Philosophy of Science, particularly space-time theory and transcendent implications of contemporary Big Bang cosmology, (2) metaphysics, particularlythe theory of time and philosophy of God, and (3) organizational ethics and its relationship to personal and cultural transformation. He has also studied leadership, historical exegesis of the New Testament, the life issues, and philosophy of culture
Caution some of this is very deep so if you are not a PhD you might have difficulty following along.
Evidence of God from Science | Credible Catholic
Faith, Science, and Reason: Collected Articles - Magis Center

http://carmelcommunications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Fr.-Spitzer-Long-Bio.pdf

Thanks for the references. I will try to check them out.

I'll give you some references on current concepts of evolutionary biology. Which has developed far beyond Darwin and natural selection.

TalkOrigins Archive is a website with articles/discussions on the mainstream scientific views of evolution.

For more information, you really need books. A good introduction is Why Evolution Is True. Dr. Jerry Coyne is a biology professor at the Univ. of Chicago. It's an older work (2010) but it's a good discussion of the various lines of evidence supporting organic evolution and is not overly technical.

A standard college text is Evolution. An updated 4th edition is coming out this spring. The older edition is a comprehensive reference on evolutionary biology. Dr. Douglas Futuyama is a professor at SUNY, Stony Brook. There's also a co-author for the new edition. It's an undergraduate level textbook that assumes some familiarity with basic principles of biology and genetics. Unfortunately, like all new textbooks, it's expensive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

we need to stop here. there is no proof for macro evolution. Therefore it is not truth.

I would say that direct observation qualifies as "proof" for most. But then like most creationists you probably do not know what macroevolution is in the first place.

Also science is not proof based it is evidence based. And there is endless evidence for all levels of evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. So are you saying that creationism is not truth? In that case you would be right.