Question for creationists only: What is the theory of evolution?

Subduction Zone · Jul 14, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
I don't want you to explain it.

I'm saying you CAN'T explain it.

Can't explain things you yourself fail to comprehend.

What I said specifically was parts of evolution like natural selection are philosophy. So not only can you not explain natural selection. It seems, you can't read.

When a limited number of people cannot understand an idea it implies that the problem is not with the person making the explanation.

Bradskii · Jul 14, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
I don't want you to explain it.

I'm saying you CAN'T explain it.

Can't explain things you yourself fail to comprehend.

What I said specifically was parts of evolution like natural selection are philosophy. So not only can you not explain natural selection. You also are incapable of reading.

How about we cut out the personal jibes right from the start, friend. And then perhaps you can explain why the various aspects of natural selection are unexplainable philosophical concepts. We can take it from there. And in case you need a heads up on what exactly it is, here's something from Brittanica:

'In natural selection, those variations in the genotype (the entire complex of genes inherited from both parents) that increase an organism’s chances of survival and procreation are preserved and multiplied from generation to generation at the expense of less advantageous variations. Evolution often occurs as a consequence of this process. Natural selection may arise from differences in survival, in fertility, in rate of development, in mating success, or in any other aspect of the life cycle. All such differences result in natural selection to the extent that they affect the number of progeny an organism leaves.'

Over to you.

pitabread · Jul 14, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
What I said specifically was parts of evolution like natural selection are philosophy. So not only can you not explain natural selection.

We can explain natural selection.

I was trying to go down the route of a specific example of natural selection (human skin pigmentation, which btw was something you brought up), yet you wouldn't even address the questions posed.

There's some irony here.

1rreducibly Complex · Jul 14, 2021

pitabread said:
1. Again, if we're talking about latitudinal slices like Europe/Africa, we're not talking landlocked populations. Population migration patterns show how people have migrated in those regions long before more transportation was a thing.

2. What you do mean by this?

3. True. And do you know why?

1. I think you severely underestimate how isolated human populations were in past times. Exploration expeditions were so overwhelmingly expensive they needed to be funded by governments, monarchs or royalty. Migrations patterns from europe to north america were fueled primarily by desperation to escape religious or political persecution. In the absence of such, there isn't necessarily much incentive or motive to travel. Its easy to say to assume that africans travelled with the advent of modern day roads and planes. People forget what magnificent barriers natural landmarks like the mojave desert were.

2. If a global pandemic of AIDs/HIV broke out and only the fraction of the human population carrying a mutation making them immune to AIDs/HIV survived. That could be considered adaptation rather than natural selection. Adaptation to UV light is the same. Smart money says it was neither natural selection or adaptation. If modern man came from africa dark skin pigmentation may have been the norm, rather than exception.

3. I would be more interested in knowing how africans branched off into eventually becoming white europeans. If indeed africa is the cradle and origins point of modern man. That seems like the relevant question. Due to there not being an obvious reason behind it.

1rreducibly Complex · Jul 14, 2021

Bradskii said:
explain why the various aspects of natural selection are unexplainable philosophical concepts.

Parts of evolution like natural selection are philosophy.

Due to them being loose generalizations which make no objective falsifiable predictions and therefore cannot be tested.

pitabread · Jul 14, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Migrations patterns from europe to north america were fueled primarily by desperation to escape religious or political persecution.

I'm not talking about migrations from Europe to North America. I'm talking about human migration patterns in Africa, Europe and Asia.

When do you think humans first started migrating to Europe?

2. If a global pandemic of AIDs/HIV broke out and only the fraction of the human population carrying a mutation making them immune to AIDs/HIV survived. That could be considered adaptation rather than natural selection. Adaptation to UV light is the same.

What do you think "adaptation" and "natural selection" actually mean?

3. I would be more interested in knowing how africans branched off into eventually becoming white europeans.

We already know that. And the mechanism involved rhymes with "factual election".

1rreducibly Complex · Jul 14, 2021

pitabread said:
I'm not talking about migrations from Europe to North America. I'm talking about human migration patterns in Africa, Europe and Asia.

When do you think humans first started migrating to Europe?

I don't think its about when migrations first occurred. So much as it is whether populations were landlocked enough for homogenous adaptation to occur.

pitabread said:
What do you think "adaptation" and "natural selection" actually mean?

Natural selection occurs on the free will side. Adaptation is on the variation/mutation side. If evolution is composed of many years of gradual shifts as science claims. Natural selection on the part of skin pigmentation would be irrelevant due to the changes occurring too slowly to be noticed.

pitabread said:
We already know that. And the mechanism involved rhymes with "factual election".

Black africans branching off into white europeans like Michael Jackson on a trend towards becoming more pale.

And what might the selection mechanism or circumstantial motive behind this move be? I don't think it has ever been identified. Only theorized.

pitabread · Jul 14, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
I don't think its about when migrations first occurred. So much as it is whether populations were landlocked enough for homogenous adaptation to occur.

Why would they need to be explicitly landlocked?

Natural selection occurs on the free will side. Adaptation is on the variation/mutation side.

I still don't know what you are trying to say here. Can you elaborate? What do mean by "free will side"? What does "variation/mutation side" mean?

Perhaps you should just describe the evolutionary process as you understand it.

Black africans branching off into white europeans like Michael Jackson on a trend towards becoming more pale.

And what might the selection mechanism or circumstantial motive behind this move be? I don't think it has ever been identified. Only theorized.

The selection pressure for skin pigmentation has been identified: UV radiation.

Bradskii · Jul 14, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Natural selection occurs on the free will side.

I thought that was what what you assumed. You think that natural selection means 'Hmm, I'll choose him/her and see what happens'.

So you have no idea what two of the most basic terms of the evolutionary process actually mean: 'Natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest'. Is it going to be at all possible to have a reasonable conversation with someone who doesn't understand the two fundamental concepts of the process?

1rreducibly Complex · Jul 14, 2021

Bradskii said:
I thought that was what what you assumed. You think that natural selection means 'Hmm, I'll choose him/her and see what happens'.

Evolution assumes the fittest selection is made. As a subjective generalization. It belongs in a book about philosophy rather than science textbooks.

Atheists spend much more time stalling, spamming and sabotaging discussion. Than they do discussing science honestly or objectively.

Bradskii · Jul 14, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Evolution assumes the fittest selection is made. As a subjective generalization. It belongs in a book about philosophy rather than science textbooks.

Atheists spend much more time stalling, spamming and sabotaging discussion. Than they do discussing science honestly or objectively.

I'm not here. To edcuate you. So I think. This conversation has. Come to an end.

Thanks. For your input.

1rreducibly Complex · Jul 14, 2021

Bradskii said:
I'm not here. To edcuate you. So I think. This conversation has. Come to an end.

Thanks. For your input.

Thanks for sharing your dishonesty.

Should you ever visit wikipedia and look up natural selection. You will see exactly what I said.

Darwin's theory
Main articles: Inception of Darwin's theory and Development of Darwin's theory
Further information: Coloration evidence for natural selection
In 1859, Charles Darwin set out his theory of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation. He defined natural selection as the "principle by which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved".[17] The concept was simple but powerful: individuals best adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce

Natural selection - Wikipedia

...

pitabread · Jul 14, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Should you ever visit wikipedia and look up natural selection. You will see exactly what I said.

It's not exactly what you said though. There is actually a key difference in that phrase you bolded versus what you wrote in your own words.

Can you spot what that is?

Bradskii · Jul 14, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
The concept was simple but powerful: individuals best adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce...

Good to see you educating yourself on the subject. But I missed the bit about free will you that you said was involved. Where was that?

tas8831 · Jul 15, 2021

rockytopva said:
I gave it my best try. My religion came through a spiritual experience rather than a mental argument.

Clearly.

tas8831 · Jul 15, 2021

rockytopva said:
Each element absorbs its own unique wavelength of light allowing us to measure consecrations of all kind of metallic compounds.

Consecrations, eh? Background in chemistry, you say?

tas8831 · Jul 15, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Can't explain things you yourself fail to comprehend.

Most insightful. An admission, of sorts.

tas8831 · Jul 15, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:

Given that you've described, if anything, a strawman caricature of evolution, that makes you... 5?

rockytopva · Jul 15, 2021

tas8831 said:
Clearly.

Just recorded camp meeting services at 1280X720 resolution and filled up my 4GB memory card in a matter of hours. How much more does a mind need to store and to process data in the form of memory, reasoning, and imagination? On the way home from camp meeting I noticed round bales of hay and fields of corn where cattle will turn to beef and dairy products. The daily rains and sunshine contributing to what will be a wonderful harvest this fall. I have been long out of debt and have used my reasoning to buy GGN while the price of gold and natural resources were down during the Trump administration. I have created a web site to promote my M=E/c2 reasoning and am currently nearing 3 million views…
https://www.youtube.com/c/rockytopva/about

I will use my resources to bless the Father of lights as it is said…. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. - James 1:17

Phred · Jul 15, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
I don't want you to explain it.

I'm saying you CAN'T explain it.

Can't explain things you yourself fail to comprehend.

What I said specifically was parts of evolution like natural selection are philosophy. So not only can you not explain natural selection. It seems, you can't read.

Let's keep this simple. You're wrong.

Question for creationists only: What is the theory of evolution?

Creationists only: What is the theory of evolution?

A fake scientific theory resulting from a deliberate conspiracy of scientists, governments, etc.

An incorrect scientific theory that is a result of poor science, but not a deliberate conspiracy

A scientific theory that is partially valid / partially invalid, but not a deliberate conspiracy

A valid scientific theory based on the current available evidence to date

Other - Please describe

I am not a creationist (non-creationists use this option to vote)

Regular Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Newbie

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Love to pray! :)

Junior Mint

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency