How were you taught Evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

Um....God spoke directly to Moses. At the burning bush and elsewhere. God directed him what to write. Jesus even pointed to Moses' writings as the word of God. It's all there in black and white.

I think your argument is with God, not with us.

You are making the mistake of assuming that the Bible is the word of God.

Most Bible scholars believe that Moses was a fiction too, at least as the writer of the pentateuch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus considered it history and the Jews regard it as history. If you bothered to read Moses' writings you will see where he got it from. God was the eyewitness. God spoke directly to Moses and other prophets.

Now you can choose not to believe what is claimed in writing or believe it. The written historical, eyewitness words remain the same.

Not necessarily. He could have referred to those writings as morality plays and allegories.

 

[EternalDragon]

You are making the mistake of assuming that the Bible is the word of God.

Most Bible scholars believe that Moses was a fiction too, at least as the writer of the pentateuch.

Keep on shufflin'

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Agreed.



And what does the answer tell you? How does dividing by 910 determine fitness?

Simple. the maximimum fittest individual is a 9999999999. That adds up to 900. So if you have an individual with 7778878875 . . . your fraction is somewhat less. During the population reduction phase, you add them up, divide by 910, compare to a computer generated random number between 1 and 0 . . . if the random number is smaller than the total of the digits divided by 910, the selected critter lives, and another is grabbed. If the random number is greater than the total of the digits divided by 910, the critter is deleted from the population.

That's a gross oversimplification of what happens in reality. As an example, a mutation which slightly increases a zebra's leg length might make it run faster and thus be able to escape from a lion, but it also makes it more likely to break it's leg.

Of course its a gross simplification. That way I can understand it.

Curious - how have you set it up to simulate how some individuals are so unfit that they do not survive long enough to reproduce?

I set it up so no digit already a 9 can ever receive a further beneficial mutation and no digit ever a 0 can ever receive a further harmful mutation. Also, I set it up so that any individual who has a 0 in its string that is randomly chosen to be tested is immediately deleted. It can only survive to the next generation by not being randomly chosen for the testing.

What was the final population? ANd this is still a great oversimplification. But still interesting and demonstrates a nice point.

The final population and the beginning population are always the same. The beginning population is doubled by the selected copying method (with or without sex) and then reduced by randomly choosing critters, one at a time, and comparing their sum by the method described to a random number and deleting or not . . . which is done until the population is back to the original size.

You said it took a few thousand generations to develop a perfect critter. How long does it take without the sex analogy in place?

I find that typical runs without the sex analogy take 50 to 100 percent longer to achieve a perfect critter. I haven't tried a non-sex run with the larger population. Runs with a population of a few hundred can be completed in a few minutes. The run with 500,000 population took the full time devotion of my older, slower machine several days to complete. "complete" means the program detected a perfect critter and automatically halted at that point.

 

[quatona]

Are you German?

Yes, I am.

 

[quatona]

Interesting. Were you taught that solely naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form of many many years ago?

I don´t know what a "naturalistic process" is (AFAIK processes don´t hold worldviews).
Now, science classes are about natural facts and processes. Non-natural processes (whatever that may be) are not the subject of science. That´s how the Jesuits handled it, as well.

Or were there other impetuses introduced for the creation of humanity other than solely naturalistic processes?

In science class? Like...what, for example?
As I said, we were introduced to metaphysical ideas in comparative religion and philosophy classes - where they belong.
I remember that they even taught us how to tear "god proofs" (cosmological argument, ontological argument etc.) apart. These Jesuit fellow (even though, as persons, pretty weird and freakish in many departments) were at least an intellectually honest bunch.

 

[justlookinla]

Interesting. Were you taught that solely naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form of many many years ago?

I don´t know what a "naturalistic process" is (AFAIK processes don´t hold worldviews).
Now, science classes are about natural facts and processes. Non-natural processes (whatever that may be) are not the subject of science. That´s how the Jesuits handled it, as well.

Solely naturalistic processes consider only those impetuses which occur naturally in nature for the creation of all life from a single life form of long long ago.

I ask again, were you taught that solely naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form of many many years ago?

Or were there other impetuses introduced for the creation of humanity other than solely naturalistic processes?

In science class? Like...what, for example?
As I said, we were introduced to metaphysical ideas in comparative religion and philosophy classes - where they belong.
I remember that they even taught us how to tear "god proofs" (cosmological argument, ontological argument etc.) apart. These Jesuit fellow (even though, as persons, pretty weird and freakish in many departments) were at least an intellectually honest bunch.

Yes, that's what I was asking. If something other than a solely naturalistic process for the creation of humanity was taught, what was it?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I first learned about evolution when I was eight and Dr. Francis Collins spoke about it at our church. He described God's creation as beautiful, intricate, awe-inspiring, and majestic, evolution as a wonderfully providential act.

I'm a 16-year-old rising senior at an independent private 7-12 school that teaches evolution beginning in the 8th grade without any religious concepts intertwined into it, and I've enjoyed the classes. They have enforced my belief in theistic evolution. I don't have any room in my schedule for another lab science this upcoming school year so I'm currently taking Evolution, Ecology, and Biodiversity at UCLA for dual enrollment (high school and college credit). I tried pasting a link to the course description but since I'm a newbie here I'm getting an error message that I have to remove the link.

The sermon with Dr. Francis when I was a kid helped to create a foundational belief of science and my faith being in harmony with one another. All the classes I've had thus far that have taught evolution have just enhanced my faith rather than detract from it. I'm young and purposefully being malleable, so there's most definitely a chance that my views will evolve (bad pun intended) but at the moment I'm still totally at peace.

 

[justlookinla]

I first learned about evolution when I was eight and Dr. Francis Collins spoke about it at our church. He described God's creation as beautiful, intricate, awe-inspiring, and majestic, evolution as a wonderfully providential act.

I'm a 16-year-old rising senior at an independent private 7-12 school that teaches evolution beginning in the 8th grade without any religious concepts intertwined into it, and I've enjoyed the classes. They have enforced my belief in theistic evolution. I don't have any room in my schedule for another lab science this upcoming school year so I'm currently taking Evolution, Ecology, and Biodiversity at UCLA for dual enrollment (high school and college credit). I tried pasting a link to the course description but since I'm a newbie here I'm getting an error message that I have to remove the link.

The sermon with Dr. Francis when I was a kid helped to create a foundational belief of science and my faith being in harmony with one another. All the classes I've had thus far that have taught evolution have just enhanced my faith rather than detract from it. I'm young and purposefully being malleable, so there's most definitely a chance that my views will evolve (bad pun intended) but at the moment I'm still totally at peace.

May I ask you the same question I asked someone earlier?

Were you taught that solely naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form of many many years ago?

 

[quatona]

Solely naturalistic processes consider only those impetuses which occur naturally in nature for the creation of all life from a single life form of long long ago.

The correct term is "natural processes", not "naturalistic processes".

I ask again, were you taught that solely naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form of many many years ago?

And I respond again: In science class I was told about natural processes (because anything else doesn´t belong in science classes).

Yes, that's what I was asking. If something other than a solely naturalistic process for the creation of humanity was taught, what was it?

In science class, none but natural processes were taught.
(In mathematics classes: mathematics; in physics classes: physics; in biology classes: biology; in chemics classes: chemics.
In Latin classes I was taught Latin (without any metaphysical baggage); in Ancient Greek classes I was taught Ancient Greek (without any metaphysical baggage); in English classes: English (without any metaphysical baggage).
Same with music, arts and sports classes.)

In religion and philosophy classes we were taught about the metaphysical ideas of different religions and philosophies.
In "Catholic theology" classes we were taught about the part that God played in the creation of the world, according to Catholic theology. IIRC, it came down to God being the origin of nature and all natural processes.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, I am.

Nice. I was born in Austria. Very rusty on my German though.

 

[quatona]

Nice. I was born in Austria. Very rusty on my German though.

Now, Austria and Northern Germany are worlds apart.
What got you to Australia?

 

[justlookinla]

Nice. I was born in Austria. Very rusty on my German though.

Put a shrimp on the barbie, mate!!

 

[Kylie]

Now, Austria and Northern Germany are worlds apart.
What got you to Australia?

My mum. Moved over here when I was very little. About four or five or something. Don't remember it that much. I'm old now.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My grandparents were from Germany. My dad was born here in the US though.

 

[freezerman2000]

When I was taught in school,it was option3..my folks instilled the God factor in me..they were part of my education also.

 

[EternalDragon]

My grandparents were from Germany. My dad was born here in the US though.

My great, great grandfather was from Germany. Came over here by boat. Most of my family is German as there are many in my area. I am German and a bit of Irish.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My great, great grandfather was from Germany. Came over here by boat. Most of my family is German as there are many in my area. I am German and a bit of Irish.

I believe that both grandparent and their parents were German but on my mother's side I am kind of a mix; Native American Indian, Irish, and Dutch.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

May I ask you the same question I asked someone earlier?

Were you taught that solely naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form of many many years ago?

It hasn't been summarized precisely that way in the science classes I've taken at school, but yep, that's the gist of it. In the UCLA class I'm taking now we're learning that life most likely originally evolved from non-living materials on the planet, like strands of nucleic acids that could catalyze some chemical reactions and had the blueprint for their own reproduction.

I can't remember precisely what Dr. Collins said about the origins of life except that God created and oversaw the process and it was compatible with scientific findings. I was 8 at the time so I don't have a perfect recollection of what he taught.

 

[justlookinla]

It hasn't been summarized precisely that way in the science classes I've taken at school, but yep, that's the gist of it. In the UCLA class I'm taking now we're learning that life most likely originally evolved from non-living materials on the planet, like strands of nucleic acids that could catalyze some chemical reactions and had the blueprint for their own reproduction.

I can't remember precisely what Dr. Collins said about the origins of life except that God created and oversaw the process and it was compatible with scientific findings. I was 8 at the time so I don't have a perfect recollection of what he taught.

Ok, thank you for your answer.