Evolution happens

[AV1611VET]

What do you consider inbreeding?

Aryan supremacy is an example of it, is it not?

Breeding like genes, or something like that?

(I'm not going to get into a science discussion on this, or I'll get vegomaticked.)

 

[BNR32FAN]

What is an evolution attempt?

A genetic mutation that was unsuccessful at sustaining long term life and reproduction.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Aryan supremacy is an example of it, is it not?

Breeding like genes, or something like that?

(I'm not going to get into a science discussion on this, or I'll get vegomaticked.)

Except that, to Hitler, the Aryan race included the white populations of Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Britain, along with Germany. Populations that would have had major genetic diversity already, so I don't see how that would have resulted in inbreeding.

Aryan supremacy is just a mix of ant-miscegenation against non-whites and weird European nationalism.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Aryan supremacy is an example of it, is it not?

I wouldn’t think that constitutes inbreeding at least not in the definition I’m familiar with. The definition I’m mostly familiar with is more closely associated with the sexual behavior of people from Alabama.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I guess that's one way to look at it.

But the gene pool since Adam & Eve has steadily been declining.

Do "adam and Eve" constitute a "gene pool"?

If we were to take the genetics of "Adam and Eve" seriously, then Eve is just an Adam clone with a missing Y-chromosome. At most 2 copies of any gene. It fails for even the simplest of genetic systems like the ABO blood groups. If Adam is "AB" then I am not descended from him as I have neither the A gene nor the B gene.

 

[Astrid]

The same could be said about intelligent design.

ID Iis not a theory. Claims are made for it, some disproved,
most are unfalsifiable ( not science)
You cannot disprove the " theory" that there's a teapot
out there orbiting the sun. It is unfalsifiable.

ToE being an actual theory is quite vulnerable in that one
discovery " the cambrian bunny" could falsify it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Of course not.
I had an organic chem prof whose religion disallowed
evolution.
When we talked about it one time, he said straight out that
he had no evidence thats its false, just that he had doubts for
statidtical reasons.

Nobody has ever been able to disprove ToE.
Fact.

Simple reason being that to do so requires facts
contrary to ToE-
And
Nobody has ever uncovered such facts.

Opinions are fine.

But since nobody has said facts they cannot truthfully
say they know.

Now, I may have been unfair to you. Maybe you do not
say you know ToE is false, and have elsewhere clearly stated
that is just your opinion.

No your absolutely correct I can’t say TOE is false I just believe that it is given the evidence that I see.

 

[Astrid]

No your absolutely correct I can’t say TOE is false I just believe that it is given the evidence that I see.

And, going by what you've said, its clear you have seen very very little.

Are you sure its not actually religion that is why you cannot believe it?

 

[BNR32FAN]

ID Iis not a theory.
You cannot disprove the " theory" that there's a teapot
outbthere orbiting the sun.

ToE being an actual theory is quite vulnerable in that one
discovery " the cambrian bunny" could falsify it.

A theory doesn’t have to be capable of being proven false it just has to be supported by evidence that we know to be fact.

 

[Ophiolite]

So then by that logic you believe that all evolution attempts are successful? That evolution is not the result of random genetic mutation but is actually an organized form of mutation?

No. I mean the question is fundamentally flawed.

An attempt implies a conscious agency. Evolutionary mechanisms are not conscious agencies. Nothing attempted to make the neck of the giraffe longer. Random mutations generated some giraffe ancestors with longer necks. Natural selection favoured this in some environments, so that animals with the mutation prospered (i.e. produced more offspring). That's evolution.

Executive Summary: Evolution is never attempted, it just happens.

Note: I can understand that your beliefs make it difficult to contemplate events occuring without direction. Perhaps you even find it unsettling. However, finding things difficult, or unsettling is not a good reason to reject them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And, going by what you've said, its clear you have seen very very little.

Are you sure its not actually religion that is why you cannot believe it?

No I believed in intelligent design long before I became a Christian. I thought that we may be the result of extraterrestrial biological engineering. It was intelligent design that convinced my beliefs in God who would technically fall into that category.

 

[AV1611VET]

No I believed in intelligent design long before I became a Christian. I thought that we may be the result of extraterrestrial biological engineering. It was intelligent design that convinced my beliefs in God who would technically fall into that category.

I think intelligent design was played around with for awhile, until God put a stop to it with a flood.

 

[BNR32FAN]

An attempt implies a conscious agency. Evolutionary mechanisms are not conscious agencies. Nothing attempted to make the neck of the giraffe longer. Random mutations generated some giraffe ancestors with longer necks. Natural selection favoured this in some environments, so that animals with the mutation prospered (i.e. produced more offspring). That's evolution.

Fair enough I see your point I just thought the manner in which I was using the word was obvious. Everyone else here seemed to understand it.

 

[Shemjaza]

You're still claiming a scenario that dodges my point ... of course.

It is actually true for the process of getting from non-life to a complex organism like man. Regardless of how many different kinds/forms of single celled organisms/multicelled, etc., the fact is that the evolution MUST go from non-life THROUGH the single celled and onto complex life.

There is no way around that.

The only way complex life bypasses that process and just appears is CREATION.

I fail to see how you can support that.

Simple multicellular colony organisms are an example of a transitional form to colonies with varied specialisation or with environmentally triggered specialisation.

We have examples of the transition of these two stages, so your assertion that the change from single celled to complex is impossible fails.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think intelligent design was played around with for awhile, until God put a stop to it with a flood.

Intelligent design took place the first 6 days of creation then it was completed.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And, going by what you've said, its clear you have seen very very little.

Are you sure its not actually religion that is why you cannot believe it?

With your constant comments and criticisms like this, why is it that you feel so compelled to call everyone else childish? All I’ve done is ask simple questions and make simple statements about the topic and you constantly reply with these immature remarks.

 

[Ophiolite]

Nope. Never did claim that. Would you like to take the honest approach and post my exact comment without doctoring it to show exactly what I DID say? Maybe I'll humor you to go from there.

Think..., you are the one who has been consistently rude throughout our exchanges. I asked you for clarification of what you meant. I told you how what you wrote appeared to mean. I gave you the opportunity to set the record straight. This is what reasonable people do in discussion. It is clear you are here only to provoke, flame and goad.

More unnecessary personal insults and rudeness, completely unchecked.

You clearly had difficulty understanding that evolution has a random component and a non-random component. If English were your second language it would be reasonable for me to make more of an effort to be comprehensible. I do not need to have my attempts at having a civilised conversation with you greeted with personal assaults.
If your intention was to drive people away from conversation with you, then congratulations - it worked with me. Goodbye.

 

[Ophiolite]

Fair enough I see your point I just thought the manner in which I was using the word was obvious. Everyone else here seemed to understand it.

Let me explain further. In explaining aspects of evolution many scientists and popularisers of science choose to speak of Nature as if it were a conscious agency. The story flows more smoothly this way.
I think this works well when one is addressing an audience who have accepted the reality of evolution and are looking for a few details. In the setting of CF, where many members are strongly opposed to the theory it creates opportunities for equivocation to creep in. That leads to heated, yet ultimatelu pointed arguments. That's why oppose that language here, just as I would regret its appearance in a research paper.

 

[Astrid]

A theory doesn’t have to be capable of being proven false it just has to be supported by evidence that we know to be fact.

That is not how it works.
At all.

 

[Astrid]

No I believed in intelligent design long before I became a Christian. I thought that we may be the result of extraterrestrial biological engineering. It was intelligent design that convinced my beliefs in God who would technically fall into that category.

So its religion that keeps it going.