Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Lol, as Congress has found out, my mind boggles soon after the number 100!Remember, most mutations that we see are likely to be only slight changes, so it's not that far to get there. And even if the chance is one in a million, it's still got a 50% chance of happening in a population of just 500,000.
Lol, as Congress has found out, my mind boggles soon after the number 100!
For all I know, chances are one in a billion. I don't have any reasonable numbers to run.
Then I've been misunderstanding what I took to be an assertion that generally mutation is caused by the environment —that environment generally steers genetics directly, not just by survival of fittest random examples (as I told @Kylie at the beginning of post #198)
The problem is that yes, if we assume a first cause then yes by definition it is first and a cause... but those are assumptions and assertions not logical conclusions.Mark Quayle said: ↑
"It's not mere assertion, but reasoning upon the meaning of 'first cause'. First Cause by definition cannot be caused, not in any way. Thus, cannot be governed in any way or to any degree by external causes."
I thought the logic that the necessary MEANING of the term 'first cause' was pretty obvious. But ok: If FIRST, then first cause cannot be caused —else, would not be first. And cannot be dependent on external causes because, that means it is in some way caused. Singular, because if there are multiple first causes, then they are all dependent in some way on external cause(s) to include, at least, co-existence.
I think you run into an issue with defining "Disagrees with my interpretation of Genesis" is being "against God".The misleading was deliberate and intended toward certain people, not to those who are [actually] inclined toward God but toward those who are inclined against God. (For what it is worthy, to some degree this also implies that to all of us it is somewhat misleading, because we are all somewhat, or in some ways, inclined against God, having this driving will toward self-determination.)
The problem is that yes, if we assume a first cause then yes by definition it is first and a cause... but those are assumptions and assertions not logical conclusions.
There is a first cause therefore there is a first cause is not a useful logic.
Also, multiple examples of a trait do not necessarily a common external cause... and I can't see how this doesn't also apply to hypothetical uncaused sources of cause.
I think you run into an issue with defining "Disagrees with my interpretation of Genesis" is being "against God".
I also feel adding layers and degrees of deliberate deception just adds to a situation where individual people with honest and even faithful interpretations of their religion and world are being deliberately mislead to different degrees.
Do you remember the Title of that closed thread? I can't seem to find it.In a thread that has now closed, I was discussing with @Mark Quayle about evolution.
Specifically, since he had stated that he hadn't studied enough about evolution, he didn't feel that he was in a position to say it was right or wrong, but wanted to hear a convincing argument that evolution was correct before he would accept it.
As such, I proposed that I would make a series of statements about evolution, and Mark would say whether he agreed or disagreed with each statement. We managed to get to two statements that Mark agreed with before the thread was closed. I had presented a third statement, but Mark had not been able to post his reply when then thread was closed.
I sent him a message asking if he wished to continue that specific part of our discussion in a new thread, and he agreed to it, so I have started this thread so our discussion on the different statements about evolution can continue. I would like to keep this thread confined to a discussion about the statements I present and not a general thread about the arguments for and against evolution.
As a refresher, these are the previous statements, and Mark's responses to them:
Original post
Original Post
Original Post
Original Post
These two statements I presented, and Mark agreed with them both. I presented my third statement, but as I said, the thread was closed before Mark could answer. I shall present my third statement again:
You have agreed that in a population of animals, there are variations, and you have agreed that these variations have a genetic basis.
Statement 3: When individual animals in this population reproduce, the genes they have are passed on to their offspring. So, the offspring carries genes from both of its parents.
Do you agree with this?
(I think she's from Hong Kong.)Do you remember the Title of that closed thread? I can't seem to find it.
Actually, what I'm looking for is that name of the sarcastic poster from Taiwan who made the most appropriate and beautiful comment: "Only you, if that many, know what what you are talking about.", if I remember correctly. I wanted to use the quote, but attribute it.
Nevermind. I found the name, but not the thread. It was @Estrid
Thanks. You know how those cities all look alike(I think she's from Hong Kong.)
Do you remember the Title of that closed thread? I can't seem to find it.
Actually, what I'm looking for is that name of the sarcastic poster from Taiwan who made the most appropriate and beautiful comment: "Only you, if that many, know what what you are talking about.", if I remember correctly. I wanted to use the quote, but attribute it.
Nevermind. I found the name, but not the thread. It was @Estrid
Haha! That's right! Funny how a thread evolves!it's the "purposes of mosquitos" thread. I included links to several posts from that thread in my OP here.
Not that come immediately to mind. Please continue.Dang, this thread slipped through the cracks, didn't it?
Anyway...
I've spoken with @Mark Quayle about several things in this thread regarding how the process of evolution takes place.
In a population of animals, different individuals have slightly different traits. These traits usually have some genetic component to them. When individuals reproduce, the genes for these traits can be passed on from parent to offspring. If the trait makes it more likely that the individual will produce more offspring, then (all other things being equal), that trait will tend to spread throughout the population over many generations. If the trait makes it LESS likely that individual will reproduce, then the trait will tend to die out over generations.
Mark has commented on this thread with some questions and requested clarifications, which I hope I've addressed to his satisfaction. I'd like to ask now, is there anything regarding the above that you still have questions about?
Not that come immediately to mind. Please continue.
With the tendency, yes. This is basically a summary of what we've already been through. Proceed.Imagine we had access to a time machine. If we could look at the population at some particular point, say, Year 1, and then we used our time machine to travel forwards in time 100,000 years, we would expect to see some changes in the traits of the population, yes?
For example, if the climate had been growing steadily colder over that time period, then any individual among the population that had a slightly thicker than average coat would have a benefit. It could, after all, withstand slightly colder temperatures, and thus would be more likely to survive colder periods, and thus be more likely to produce more offspring than a different individual without this trait. So, in this case, we would see that the animals in year 100,000 had thicker coats than the animals in year 1. The climate growing colder is an example of a "selective pressure," something which means that only some of the traits provide benefits.
And that's just one example of a selective pressure. Another one could be the result of the changes over time themselves.
Let's say the population of animals eats the leaves of trees. If there's a tree which grows slightly taller, then this trait is a benefit to it. It is less likely to have its leaves eaten, and therefore it is going to find it easier to survive. After all, it has more photosynthesis factories than a tree that is shorter and has its leaves more heavily cropped. So, over time, we'd expect to see the trees get taller. But of course, this would drive the animals to grow taller, either by longer legs, longer necks, etc. An animal that has a longer than average neck will be able to eat from more trees than an animal that has an average length neck. So, it times of hardship, this animal will have access to food that other animals can't reach. This again is a benefit, and so the long neck trait will spread throughout the population over many generations. If we were to look at this animal/tree ecosystem at year 1 and then look at it again in year 100,000, we'd likely see that both the animals and the trees were taller.
Would you agree with this?
With the tendency, yes. This is basically a summary of what we've already been through. Proceed.
Why not? How different?Okay, now, let's say that the population at Year 1 happens to go through some event that separates them. Maybe there's an unusually heavy snowfall in the mountains which results in a flood, and that changes the course of the river. Now, the population is divided. One group is on the north side of the river where there are the plains with grasslands for grazing, but predators that hunt. And on the south of the river, there are fewer predators, but rougher terrain and less food. The pressures that act on the north-siders will be different to the pressures that act on the south-siders, yes? And so the traits that are favoured in the north-siders are likely going to be different to the traits favoured in the south-siders. So, if we come back at year 100,000, we'd expect to see that the north siders and the south siders would be quite different, wouldn't we?
Why not? How different?
I only have a limited understanding of evolution so I'm just going to enjoy reading but I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your and others' input here and I marvel at your patience. Thank you.In a thread that has now closed, I was discussing with @Mark Quayle about evolution.
Specifically, since he had stated that he hadn't studied enough about evolution, he didn't feel that he was in a position to say it was right or wrong, but wanted to hear a convincing argument that evolution was correct before he would accept it.
As such, I proposed that I would make a series of statements about evolution, and Mark would say whether he agreed or disagreed with each statement. We managed to get to two statements that Mark agreed with before the thread was closed. I had presented a third statement, but Mark had not been able to post his reply when then thread was closed.
I sent him a message asking if he wished to continue that specific part of our discussion in a new thread, and he agreed to it, so I have started this thread so our discussion on the different statements about evolution can continue. I would like to keep this thread confined to a discussion about the statements I present and not a general thread about the arguments for and against evolution.
As a refresher, these are the previous statements, and Mark's responses to them:
Original post
Original Post
Original Post
Original Post
These two statements I presented, and Mark agreed with them both. I presented my third statement, but as I said, the thread was closed before Mark could answer. I shall present my third statement again:
You have agreed that in a population of animals, there are variations, and you have agreed that these variations have a genetic basis.
Statement 3: When individual animals in this population reproduce, the genes they have are passed on to their offspring. So, the offspring carries genes from both of its parents.
Do you agree with this?
What were they created from, AV?Probabilities have nothing to do with it.
Just a few elements were created, then those elements were mixed and matched to configure this entire universe which, as I said before, is at least 94 billion light years wide.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?