Natural Selection is not metaphysics

[Jet Black]

To paraphrase something I said the other night:

The fact that so much effort is expended on the part of creationists with semantic games (like calling evolution a religion or a myth) exemplifies exactly how bankrupt the creationist position is.

If their position were really as tenable as they claim it to be, they wouldn't waste so much political and intellectual capital on semantics and would actually present evidence destroying the foundations of evolutionary biology.

I agree. It reminds me of an old line in my signature "Never argue with fools, they drag you down to their level and beat you through experience". This issue is somewhat similar in that creationists, rather than defending their science and presenting evidence, attempt to call evolution a religion so that they can face it within their own sphere of discussion. The majority of Mark Kennedy's comments could be directed, just as equally and with no alteration to other scientific theories, such as Gravity, or Germ Theory, two other theories which push out God and insert some naturalistic mechanism in His place. As Lucaspa is fond of pointing out (where is he these days? battling in the CO areas?) The creationsits ironically take the same stance as the extreme atheists, in that natural = without God.

 

[USincognito]

Quote mining.

Again, not undermining the basic facts of evolutionary biology. O for two so far.

 

[monkenstick]

You fail to understand that the principle is apriori. Experiments? Where were the 150 years of null hypothesis offered while natural selection was being proven?

the null hypothesis of evolution is Hardy Weinberg equilibrium:

(p+q)^2= p^2 + 2pq + q^2

it states that allele fequencies in a population reach equilibrium after one generation

since it is violated all the time, the null hypothesis of evolution has been rejected

 

[Philosoft]

I offer you the promise of natural selection as an all encompassing theory of reality and you give me satire,. This is just too good for me to wrap my mind around. I'll promise you one thing, and I will not fail to produce this while I have life in my fingers.
I will show you from Darwins own hand how his philosophy is metaphysics based on naturalistic assumptions. If I'm right, then you allready recognize it as a natural fact.

In fact I would dare to suggest the source of his pedantic prose, it was not science, it was the poetry of his grandfather:

"Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
was born and nurs'd in oceans pearly caves
first forms minute unseen by spheric glass
move on the mud or pierce the watery mass
There as successive generations bloom
Newpowers aquire and larger limbs assume
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring
and breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.
(Eramus Darwin 1731-1802)

Natural selection is not science, its poetry! What a beautifull peice of fiction. The Greeks did the same thing with Zeus, its the same old lie. Its absolutly flawless how perfectly the masses dance in tune with the myth maker.

Listen!

Now dance!

1) Erasmus Darwin wrote poetry.
2) Therefore, Natural Selection is metaphysical.

Is that really your argument? Now would be the time to fess up if you have something else to tell us. Because we will reveal your "argument," such as it is, as a joke if you don't.

 

[mark kennedy]

I agree. It reminds me of an old line in my signature "Never argue with fools, they drag you down to their level and beat you through experience". This issue is somewhat similar in that creationists, rather than defending their science and presenting evidence, attempt to call evolution a religion so that they can face it within their own sphere of discussion. The majority of Mark Kennedy's comments could be directed, just as equally and with no alteration to other scientific theories, such as Gravity, or Germ Theory, two other theories which push out God and insert some naturalistic mechanism in His place. As Lucaspa is fond of pointing out (where is he these days? battling in the CO areas?) The creationsits ironically take the same stance as the extreme atheists, in that natural = without God.

Actually the paradox of "Rebuke a fool lest he think himself wise, and do not rebuke a fool lest you become like him". I dont have the reference but its from a book of Proverbs that you most likely don't aprove of.

BTW, the law of gravity was the brain child of an alchemist, do you disparage his work because he believed that:

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intellignet and powerfull being."

(Isaac Newton 1726)

????????

 

[USincognito]

The basis from which Moder Astronomy (MA) is derived from is astrology. The ancient astrologers thought that signs and omens could be devined though the movement of the stars. The planets and stars themselves are named for supernatural beings. MA is only an effort to remove the supernatural from astrology, ergo, it is a metaphysic.

Yep, you can't argue against logic like that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Quote mining.

Again, not undermining the basic facts of evolutionary biology. O for two so far.

Cliche' mongering, it still does not define the 'basic facts of evolutionary biology'.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I think it's safe to say at this point that this whole "natural selection is metaphysics" claim is little more than hot air. When confronted with an empirical example of natural selection in action, the creationists here seem to prefer the duck 'n weave debate technique rather than actually address the issue.

So far no creationist has attempted to address the experiment in the OP. Heck, I wonder if any have even looked at it.

 

[mark kennedy]

1) Erasmus Darwin wrote poetry.
2) Therefore, Natural Selection is metaphysical.

Is that really your argument? Now would be the time to fess up if you have something else to tell us. Because we will reveal your "argument," such as it is, as a joke if you don't.

Is that satire really supposed to impress anyone as science? Fess up, you have no theory of knowledge, reality, or science. Otherwise you would compare it to Darwins, or mine, or anyones. Instead you offer satire.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it. Dance on!

 

[monkenstick]

Is that satire really supposed to impress anyone as science? Fess up, you have no theory of knowledge, reality, or science. Otherwise you would compare it to Darwins, or mine, or anyones. Instead you offer satire.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it. Dance on!

This is coming from someone who is apparently unaware of advances in genetics such as mutations, and the existence of a null hypothesis in hardy-weinberg equilibrium

 

[Jet Black]

Actually the paradox of "Rebuke a fool lest he think himself wise, and do not rebuke a fool lest you become like him". I dont have the reference but its from a book of Proverbs that you most likely don't aprove of.

BTW, the law of gravity was the brain child of an alchemist, do you disparage his work because he believed that:

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intellignet and powerfull being."

(Isaac Newton 1726)

????????

Einstein wasn't an alchemist.

 

[Philosoft]

Is that satire really supposed to impress anyone as science? Fess up, you have no theory of knowledge, reality, or science. Otherwise you would compare it to Darwins, or mine, or anyones. Instead you offer satire.

Well, you have no integrity, honesty or shame. I guess that makes us even. Numerically, anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it. Dance on!

No way. I hate show tunes.

 

[Jet Black]

I think it's safe to say at this point that this whole "natural selection is metaphysics" claim is little more than hot air. When confronted with an empirical example of natural selection in action, the creationists here seem to prefer the duck 'n weave debate technique rather than actually address the issue.

So far no creationist has attempted to address the experiment in the OP. Heck, I wonder if any have even looked at it.

Probably not. The same goes for the endogenous retroviruses and the large number of matched phylogenetic trees that we see from different aspects of molecular biology alone.

 

[mark kennedy]

Newton was or didnt you know that the law of gravity was Newton's?????

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, you have no integrity, honesty or shame. I guess that makes us even. Numerically, anyway.
No way. I hate show tunes.

You are dancing and I'm loving it. I base everything I am saying on the patron saint evolutionist of all time. I do have shame, quote your master in contridiction of what I'm saying about him and I will apologise, redfaced and contrite. Offer me a conditional like that and I'll dance an Irish jig like you have never seen.

 

[Arikay]

It would be nice if the creationists would actually address the issue, but I have long learned thats not how creationism works.

 

[Jet Black]

All Newton showed was that things like the moon were pulled down, and not held up. The actual description of Gravity for what it is, namely the curvature of space due to mass, did not come along until einstein. I am of course just being pedantic, but the point still remains that Gravity, like evolution and germ theory, pushes out God.

 

[USincognito]

You are dancing and I'm loving it. I base everything I am saying on the patron saint evolutionist of all time. I do have shame, quote your master in contridiction of what I'm saying about him and I will apologise, redfaced and contrite. Offer me a conditional like that and I'll dance an Irish jig like you have never seen.

Here it is again folks. Confusing Origin with some sort of Bible. Tsk tsk. So sad...

 

[USincognito]

All Newton showed was that things like the moon were pulled down, and not held up. The actual description of Gravity for what it is, namely the curvature of space due to mass, did not come along until einstein. I am of course just being pedantic, but the point still remains that Gravity, like evolution and germ theory, pushes out God.

And astronomy, as I showed earlier...

 

[monkenstick]

You are dancing and I'm loving it. I base everything I am saying on the patron saint evolutionist of all time. I do have shame, quote your master in contridiction of what I'm saying about him and I will apologise, redfaced and contrite. Offer me a conditional like that and I'll dance an Irish jig like you have never seen.

thats part of the problem, you don't seem to have realised that the science of evolution has progressed markedly since darwin's time, he is no longer the authority on evolution