Natural Selection is not metaphysics

[Arikay]

Which is funny because I have read more of the christian bible than of "origin"

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

 

[Jet Black]

And astronomy, as I showed earlier...

Indeed. I wonder if these creationsits will stop making these silly atheistic statements, and just get to grips with the fact that science is agnostic.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

Oh what a revelation! You only accept the naturalistic assumption and yet you offer as a post script God being pushed out. Thank you for making my...and I might add...Darwin's point...again.

Shine on you crazy diamond, nothing in all of Christiandom could do more to reaffirm my faith. The offer of a formal debate still stands, if any of you find the courage of your convictions, I'll see you there tommorow night.

Thank you! I can't begin to tell you how much fun this has been.

 

[Jet Black]

Oh what a revelation! You only accept the naturalistic assumption and yet you offer as a post script God being pushed out. Thank you for making my...and I might add...Darwin's point...again.

I don't think you understood me.

so now you think that angels push things around according to the inverse square law or something then?

 

[Philosoft]

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.

I don't want your apology. I want you to scram. Just stay away from my daughter's science class. Far away.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

*sigh* I see this thread is spiraling off-topic.

Ah well, I'm off to bed. If a creationist can actually address the OP, more power to you. Until then, the whole "natural selection is metaphysics" claim remains bankrupt in the face of empirical observation and evidence.

G'night.

 

[Arikay]

For those who are forgetting the point of this thread, this is the unaddressed OP,

I've seen it raised a few times on this forum that natural selection is metaphysics. I challenge that claim with the following:

First of all, I snagged a definition of metaphysics from Dictionary.com:

met·a·phys·ics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mt-fzks)
n.
1. Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
2. The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
3. A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
4. Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning. (modified for readibility)

Of these, definitions two and three are where natural selection might fall under relating to biological evolution. But definition 2 is vague, whereas definition 3 is precise: A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

Second, I snagged a definition of natural selection, also from Dictionary.com

n.
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

Now, if this process is "a priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment", therefore it should not be possible to test (scientifically) natural selection.

However, I have an example in which the outcome of the process of natural selection was predicted and verified via a laboratory experiment:

Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment

Excerpts:

The Evolved Strain Outcompetes the Parental Strain when they are Grown Together in Continuous Culture

Previous observations showed that the evolved strain had reverted to the GAL1 phenotype; 28–15L4 and CP1AB are therefore readily distinguished by colony size on 0.8% galactose minimal agar. A pair of chemostats was initiated with equal densities of the parental and evolved strains, and their relative frequencies were followed for 20 generations (fig. 2). The frequency of the evolved strain increased steadily in both chemostats until the parental strain could no longer be detected.

The Evolved Strain Transports Glucose Two to Eight Times Faster than the Parental Strain

Given our observation that the two strains differ in s by an order of magnitude, the simplest explanation for their difference in competitive ability is that selection has favored the evolution of an improved mechanism for transporting limiting substrate. Figure 3 shows the results of glucose transport assays comparing uptake velocity at several glucose concentrations for cells grown in chemostat monoculture on 0.08% glucose at a dilution rate of 0.2/h. The evolved strain consistently demonstrates greater substrate uptake velocity than the parental strain.

The full paper goes into much more detail, but I highlighted the parts I need to make my point. We have an empirical demonstration of natural selection in action, with a particular strain of yeast out-competing another in response to its environment.

Is natural selection metaphysics? Based on the above experiment, I would say no. So to the creationists that have made this assertion, can you defend it? If this experiment doesn't demonstrate natural selection, then what are we seeing here?

 

[JohnCJ]

Jet black is so funny it is almost mean.

Not every christian is afraid to accept scientific fact or theory. I think I am one of the only people on these boards that can accept scientific fact or theory and at the same time proclaim God is the creator.

 

[Jet Black]

Jet black is so funny it is almost mean.

Not every christian is afraid to accept scientific fact or theory. I think I am one of the only people on these boards that can accept scientific fact or theory and at the same time proclaim God is the creator.

Actually there are quite a few that accept both scientific fact and accept that God is a creator. To be honest, I have difficulty understanding those who don't. It seems positively Orwellian to me.

 

[ThePhoenix]

I have read the posts offered thus far and I would offer a couple of points I think are commonly neglected in these discussions.

First of all, lets start with the object of metaphysics. Metaphyisics is "the substantative element that runs throughout reality". It is a branch of philosophy that goes beyond what we actually know (episimology) to include everything that 'is', it is even more far reaching then ontology (the science of essense). What Darwin was doing was reducing all of life to principles that can be summed up as mechanistic preumptions. Now, by presumption I do not mean that you make up your mind before you see the evidence. I mean that it is a belief (not mere opinon) that it is self-evident and obvious to the point of being undeniable, except to the most idiodic.

Darwin claimed that the mechanism of evolution was Natural Selection (NR), and he laid claim to a number of proofs for this. This has become the cornerstone of modern science (especially biology)

Just out of curiousity, could you explain how evolution has influenced any science besides biology? I have never seen evolution used in physics or chemistry, for instance.

and he specificatly points out in 'Origin of Species' that it is opposed to two things:

1: The immuntability of species (Aristotlean biology)
2: Special creation

My position is this, and only this, he is determined to remove God from the equation and reason in a naturalistic frame of reference as if God did not have anything to do with it. This was, and is, in all its many forms and variations, metaphysics.

But even if this was Darwin's goal, that's not evidence that his theory should be discarded, merely looked at skeptically. From a scientific standpoint what the theory says is that changes accumulate gradually over time to make large changes. This seems logical to me. After all, as a log rots in nature it gradually gets gray, develops holes, and gets weak. After a while it becomes dirt. Gradual changes add up to large changes.

The evidence that kinds have changed this way is shown many ways. The proof that makes the most sense to me is viral "scars" on our DNA code that are shared between certain species. Also the similarity in structure between different species suggests that they are some way related.

I am sick and tired of trying to defend creationism against what is obviously a philosophical premise. Empirical science was being developed at the same time by Mendel who developed the laws of inheritance, which are the cornerstone of genetics. This was largely ignored at the time Darwin wrote his book and yet NR recieves more attention, and amazingly, is more important. I think I know why, science is boring but mythology excites the imagaination. Darwin created the myth that has become an imposter of science. No better, no worse, no DIFFERENT, then the dogma that held that the earth was the center of the universe.

Mendel's laws are part of Evolution, and they seem to reinforce it rather then oppose it. After all, Mendel's laws show how genes are expressed. If a certain expression of genes is harmful then eventually they'll die out. If a mutation introduces a new gene, and it's helpful, eventually it'll become dominant.

Galileo used astrology to diagnose sickness, Newton used alchemy to understand physics, and the modern scientist uses mythical creatures to explain our origins. Nothing has changed since the dark ages except that the priests vestiments have been replaced with lab coats.

Natural selection is metaphysics in every sense of the word. It reduces absolutly every living system to a gradual progression of mechanistic principles within the material world. It cannot be anything else because it appeals to nothing beyond naturalistic phenomenom.

What I cannot get over is how a person who has substituted religious conviction for naturalistic presumption would even bother to deny it. Hey! it should be a boast.

Mythical creatures? Like dinosaurs, homo erectus, trilobytes, etc.?

 

[Sirunai]

First of all, when you say something is a misqoute, prove it. It doesn't do any good to anyone if you don't prove that a qoute is misqouted because that person (who has misquoted) may have misinterpreted it and you have to take the initiative to set that person straight.

Second of all fight against the issue people, not the man (or woman) arguing against your side of the issue. Thank you, Arikay, for bringing us back to the issue.

Third, Don't say something totally off topic. If someone tells you to prove NS or disprove NS, talk about NS not about anything other than NS, and if someone shows something which proves NS debate against that particular part (Don't go off in some other direction. Again address the current issue).

Fourth, and most importantly, be willing to accept that you don't know. Never accept you are wrong until you know 100% of all knowledge, which will never happen. So, please just be willing to be rather agnostic on the issue. Don't act like you know everything. Instead say, "I can't disprove what you are saying, but in the rest of knowledge humans have yet to find there may be plenty to disprove what you are saying. So, you win, for now."

I was just seeing those issues popping up by pretty much everyone, so I just thought I'd address that. Now to arguing:

Just out of curiousity, could you explain how evolution has influenced any science besides biology? I have never seen evolution used in physics or chemistry, for instance.

This kind of makes me wonder, what has evolution offerred to the scientific community? It hasn't saved anyone from dying, or stopped wars or even increased knowledge, it just opens up an endless chasm of theories and ideology which one will try to prove. They will prove it too, but not without error. From one who's done way too many experiments, you will get the results your looking for throughout your experiment. So an experiment will do nothing. I can, also, admit that creationism has donated nothing to science because it has given counterclaims of equal strength to the evolutionist arguments ergo, nulifying them.

This can make one think about Newton's Second (or was it it third? I honestly don't care) Law about every action having an equal and opposite reaction. If an evolutionist makes a claim there is within the 100% of all knowledge (somewhere) a claim which is opposite and equal. All this "debate" (much more childish name calling or bickering) seems to be doing is absolutely nothing.

The second thing I'd like to also note something. Science is something which is reproduceable in a controlled environment. Certainly no one has ever created anything from nothing and certainly no one has stood in a lab and watched NS take its course on a pair(s) of organism(s). (LOLOLOLOLOL) Man the implication are rather hystarical.

Also the similarity in structure between different species suggests that they are some way related.

This could mean one of two things same origin or same creator.

If a certain expression of genes is harmful then eventually they'll die out. If a mutation introduces a new gene, and it's helpful, eventually it'll become dominant.

This again proves nothing for NS because one loses an expression of genes, then a mutation introduces a new gene? Could it be possible that the mutation was using EXISTING information? DNA contains the data for everything in our or anything's being. It may surprise you that DNA is never used at 100% throughout the body. (And I don't mean in one spot, I mean collectively) So, what if this "new gene" was one that was already existant, but more or less dormant, because it wasn't needed yet?

Mythical creatures? Like dinosaurs, homo erectus, trilobytes, etc.?

They're absolutely not. The dinosaurs existed, but how much do we have of them? Not much. We don't have enough real donisaur bones to fill a 30 000 cubic foot building. It's not that dinosuars didn't exist, it's that there truly isn't much left of them and T-rex or Raptor may have looked amazingly different, because the world has only a few full skeletons. There is no full skeletons or even half skeletons of homo erectus and those bones that do exist are skull pieces and teeth and hip bones. The rest is usually plaster that is aged (or changed somehow) to look like the rest of the skeleton. I know this because I've seen what is done in museums with bones and producing a skeleton. I just feel and know that there is too little fossil evidence to show what the animals, to which these bones belonged, looked like or even were. I'm not too formiliar which trilobytes so I guess I'll have to research that, thank you (You are forcing me to increase my knowledge of the topic and yes I have to look at what both creation and evolution scientists say because I don't want to get 'biased' information. even though information is always).

Your perceptions will not change reality, simply colour it.

 

[SLP]

Darwin claimed that the mechanism of evolution was Natural Selection (NR),

I am curious - why are you attacking Darwin and his original thesis? You are aware, are you not, that TODAY, the theory of evolution is substantively different? Why attack a strawman?

I am sick and tired of trying to defend creationism against what is obviously a philosophical premise.

I am sick and tired of being told what evolution is by people that clearly have no idea. Mutations don't exist? You, sir, clearly do not even know what a mutation is!
Of course, if evolution is premised on a philosophical position, so what? Does that mean that the THEORY of evolution is therefore wrong? If a field of study is premised on a philosophical position, creationism is a myth as well.

Empirical science was being developed at the same time by Mendel who developed the laws of inheritance, which are the cornerstone of genetics. This was largely ignored at the time Darwin wrote his book and yet NR recieves more attention, and amazingly, is more important.

You are apparently unaware that the NDT encompasses genetics. In fact, genetics has become a major source of empirical evidence FOR evolution.
Again, why attack a strawman?

*snip inflammatory gibberish*
Natural selection is metaphysics in every sense of the word. It reduces absolutly every living system to a gradual progression of mechanistic principles within the material world. It cannot be anything else because it appeals to nothing beyond naturalistic phenomenom.

garbage. Why must reality appeal to the supernatural? Is the real less real if there is no requirement for a Deity to work its magic?

What I cannot get over is how a person who has substituted religious conviction for naturalistic presumption would even bother to deny it. Hey! it should be a boast.

What I cannot get over is how frequently people that are clearly ignorant of the science involved can make pompous proclamations premised on their metaphysical underpinnings.

 

[SLP]

Also Mark, you had said that creationism is a "vastly superior metaphysic" for engaging in science.

let's see:

=========



"We look at the same data, just not under the same metaphysic as you."
“It’s all metaphysics, and my metaphysic is the best one!”

So the argument goes in this ‘debate’ – the evolution accepter, beholden as they are to the ‘metaphysic’ of Naturalistic materialism, cannot see how the creationist metaphysic – supernaturalistic antimaterialism, is far superior. It is, after all, premised on Scripture, and Scripture is Inspired.
And so, if one views evidence, in the words of Henry Morris, “the right way” – that is, through the eyes of the creationist metaphysic – one will see the Truth of the creationist claims.

Well, let’s take a look at this creationist metaphysic in action. I will let the objective, rational reader determine if this metaphysic is the superior one when dealing with issues scientific…

When I was a graduate student working on molecular phylogenetics, I discovered a series of articles in the Creationist peer-reviewed literature * dealing with the same subject.

The authors of these articles were applying computer algorithms to molecular data to determine the relationships between creatures that descended form the ‘kinds’ that were Created and were later allowed to live on the ark.

These and other papers lay out the creationist version of systematics, called Baraminology (or Discontinuity Systematics), which utilize standard computer programs and reproducible analyses using molecular data. These ‘baraminologists’ have set up an entire field of study, complete with its own bible-based terminology and concepts.

The first paper, “A Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Testudine Apobaramin,” 1997, DA Robinson, CRSQ 33:4 p. 262-272, examines the relationships between turtles, and establishes or at least lays out some important criteria for establishing affinity of species (baramina) – patterns of mutation bias, gaps between ingroup and outgroups, topological congruence of cladograms using differing parameters and analyses, and strong bootstrap support for the arrangements. The author was able to determine using these methods – which are essentially the same as those used by systematists – that all turtles are related via descent form a created kind, but could not resolve lower-level relationships.

The third paper dealt with cat phylogeny, and just expande don earlier ‘proof of concept’ papers.

But the second paper was of great interest to me.

“A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates,” 1998, D. Ashley Robinson and David P. Cavanaugh, CRSQ 34:4 p. 196-208, was the very subject I was working on.


Much of the paper consists of quoting/referring to Scripture, which is odd for a scientific paper but not, I assume, for a scientific paper premised on the supernaturalistic metaphysic, and outlining their justification for their “baraminic distance” criterion. This takes up about the first 4 pages. The baraminic distance is essentially equivalent to the materialistic genetic distance measure, it is just called something else.

Those pages are, save for the references to Scripture, well written and exhibit a great deal of thought. The paper gets interesting, however, when we get to the Materials and Methods section on p. 201. The title of the paper and several sentences in the introductory portion indicate that the interest here is in the Old World monkeys, not the human-ape question. Indeed, they discount that question altogether:
“Since Scriptures clearly imply that humans were specially created (Genesis 1:26-272 , 22), and thus phylogenetically distinct from other organisms, we utilize the human-nonhuman primate relationship as a control.”
This will be of interest later.
Their data consisted of 12s rRNA gene sequences, chromosomal characters, morphological characters, and ecological characters. The data were analyzed individually and as a total evidence dataset using standard phylogenetic analysis software.

It is the results and discussion in which the metaphysic of supernaturalism comes into play.

For those of you that do not know, when you set up a data matrix for analysis you utilize what is called an outgroup – a taxon that is not closely related to the group under study – for use as a ‘yardstick’ of sorts. For example, when analyzing primates you might use rabbit as an outgroup. Interestingly, as quoted above, the baraminologists use human as the outgroup in their analyses.
Outgroups must be designated prior to running the analysis, or the results will appear strange. If you designate the wrong taxon as the outgroup, your results will be strange indeed (you can, of course, run analyses without an outgroup, but these analyses were not utilized by the baraminologists).
So, when the baraminologists ran neighbor joining analyses on the data, they used human as the outgroup. NJ methods assume a constant rate of evolution, which is not indicated by either fossil or molecular evidence and so has fallen out of favor. Though they do not specifically state that they designated human as outgroup, this is what must have happened. This is because the order of the taxa in the dataset can influence the arrangement produced in NJ analyses. For example, I analyzed one of my datasets and I got an arrangement similar to the one seen in the CRSQ paper. Human is first in that dataset, so I cut and pasted it last, re-ran the analysis, and Human got stuck somewhere in the middle of the cluster (however, when I ran a bootstrap analysis, human grouped with chimp). However, when I designated a new world monkey as outgroup, I got the ‘accepted’ arrangement – human + chimp. Making human the outgroup produces an arrangement similar to the one in the CRSQ paper – NJ analyses by default use the first taxon as the outgroup unless designated otherwise.

And what follows from that is the production of weakly supported topologies, since they tried to force the data to conform to a ‘non-natural’ topology. The node linking chimps and gorillas was supported with only 53% bootstrap support. That is fairly low. In a paper not constrained by the antimaterialism metaphysic, in which human is not the outgroup, chimps join gorilla with 96-100% support, depending on the data used. Forcing the data to fit a preconceived notion based on a metaphysic produces statistically significant error.

They mention in the abstract “We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.”

The description of the morphological analysis sounds impressive – 43 characters. The morphological characters, however, I believe, were specifically selected to produce the desired results. Why do I say this? Because this paper:
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1996 Feb; 5(1): 102-54. Primate phylogeny: morphological vs. molecular results. Shoshani J, Groves CP, Simons EL, Gunnell GF.**
Was known to the authors. It contained an analysis of not 43 characters, but 264, and this analysis grouped human with chimp.
The other data, ecological data, is the nmost subjective and should produce no surprise when it was this data that provided the baraminologists their ‘strongest evidence. For a separate human baramin. And what were some of these data? Things like percent foliage in diet, monogamy, population group size and density, home range size, etc. It looks to me like these data too were chosen to produce a desired outcome, for what exactly does “monogamy” have to do with descent?

Indeed, the authors state in their Discussion section:
“Character selection, not the method of analysis, is expected to be the primary factor affecting baraminic hypotheses. False conclusions can be reached unless baraminically informative data has been sampled. Since we have no a priori knowledge regarding which characters are more reliable for identifying holobaramins, it is important to evaluate the reliability of a wide variety of biological data for inferring baraminic relationships.”

And later:

“it is interesting to note that the ecological and morphological criteria were the most adept at distinguishing humans and the most highly correlated, indicating that the datasets in the strongest agreement were the most reliable.”

Yes, that is interesting – the most subjective and limited criteria are the most reliable for giving the creationist the arrangement they want…


That is, they have to pick data that give them the results they want – those that conform to Scripture.

Creationism’s metaphysic in action…


What I did not mention is this, from the section on selecting characters:

“With the exception of the Scriptural criterion no single data set is sufficient to define the holobaramin.”

Translation: Scripture gives us the answers, we need to find the data that will conform to these answers.

The ‘superior’ metaphysic in action.

*I had contacted the authors of this paper in 1999 asking for reprints and neither replied to my requests. I had to buy the issues form CRSQ. Later, after reading in the paper that the data sets were available from the authors on request, I sent an IM to DA Robinson while online one day. First he pretended not to know what I was talking about. After he acknowledged co-authoring the paper, he said something that astounded me – he said that he didn’t think the data sets even existed anymore!

Creationist metaphysic in action.

So, objective reader – is this metaphysic superior? Is this the best way to engage in scientific pursuits – to seek the TRUE answers in Scripture then try to shoe-horn data to fit those ‘answers’?

Sadly, many seem to insist that the answer is yes. No wonder these folks do not wish to discuss science…


Wasn't it Behe who said words to the effect of:

"...the scientist should follow the data to where it leads whether or not the direction is appealing".


** During my IM chat with one of the baraminologists, I was asked if I knew the lead author of that paper. Indeed I did - we had tossed around the idea of doing a project together and I had helped him with some of the analyses. This was before I had even mentioned the paper in question - the baraminologist was fishing to see if I would be able to know the jiug was up. that is my interpretation, anyway..

 

[SLP]

Oh. Right. Not comparing apples to apples. Silly me, I should have realized that.

But, you're still avoiding the question. If the experiment in the OP is not an empirical example of natural selection in action, then what is it? Do you have an answer or are silly word games the best you can do?

Alos odd that he seems only to be able to discuss Darwin did or didn't do 150 years ago...

 

[SLP]

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

It is odd that you keep mentioning facts and Mendel and all that when you don't know what a mutation is...

 

[michabo]

Just out of curiousity, could you explain how evolution has influenced any science besides biology? I have never seen evolution used in physics or chemistry, for instance.

Medicine, computing science, botany, and agriculture for a start.

See http://www.christianforums.com/t96928

 

[michabo]

First of all, when you say something is a misqoute, prove it.

If someone claims to have a quote, they should be able to back it up. At least to provide a source and citation. Do you expect someone to read through all of an author's published works, newspaper articles, and memoirs in the hopes of finding a sentence resembling a quote?

Instead say, "I can't disprove what you are saying, but in the rest of knowledge humans have yet to find there may be plenty to disprove what you are saying. So, you win, for now."

We can't disprove Santa. So? We seek to prove the existence of a small group of things, not disprove all conceivable nonsense that can be dreamt up.

It hasn't saved anyone from dying, or stopped wars or even increased knowledge,

Actually it has done two out of three. Not sure when stopping wars have become a criteria for validity.

I can, also, admit that creationism has donated nothing to science because it has given counterclaims of equal strength to the evolutionist arguments ergo, nulifying them.

Unless you are measuring the strength of an argument by the shrillness and volume of its supporters, I don't think you know what constitutes a strong argument.

Certainly no one has ever created anything from nothing and certainly no one has stood in a lab and watched NS take its course on a pair(s) of organism(s).

On a pair, no, but evolution has been observed in the lab on groups. There are many citations in this group and on talkorigins.

 

[USincognito]

*sigh* I see this thread is spiraling off-topic.

Ah well, I'm off to bed. If a creationist can actually address the OP, more power to you. Until then, the whole "natural selection is metaphysics" claim remains bankrupt in the face of empirical observation and evidence.

G'night.

Pete, I'm sure you know this, but it's the same old thing.

Creationist: Evolution is a myth.
Science Supporter(SS): Here is evidence falsifying your claim.
Creationist: Evolution is a myth.
SS2: Here's more evidence falsifying your claim.
Creationist: Evolution is a myth.
SS3: Yet another example that the Creationist claim is false.
Creationist: Evolution is a myth.
SS: Can you please address the explicit example in my first post.
Creationist: Sure. Evolution is a myth.

I fear that Mark is little better than bevets or napajohn in his willingness to address actual factual evidences for evolution. It's much more suiting his agenda to reword his original claim and reiterate it or play sematics (as I mentioned previously). Sadly, I don't think he's quite up to the challenge, and thus, the thread will continue for pages and pages of the same old stuff we've all seen PRATTed a thousand times before.

 

[Sirunai]

Actually it has done two out of three. Not sure when stopping wars have become a criteria for validity.

I just am saying that both haven't produced anything really productive but bitterness and an eternity of squabbling because both sides will not move in their position. That's all I'm saying, so why continue?

Remember, your perceptions will not change reality, simply colour it.

 

[toff]

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!

How many times do you have to be told that natural selection is not evolution? It is a PART of evolutionary theory.