Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Statements About Evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mark Quayle" data-source="post: 76865190" data-attributes="member: 410020"><p>Of the fast-reproducing organisms, and all other things being equal, yes, or, if "survival trait" means, among other things, reproducibility (i.e. non-sterile).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"Would tend to be" is not the same as "will be". Or maybe if you said, "All other things being equal..."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's obvious, and I'm sorry to cause you to belabor the point. My reservations have little to do with understanding the general principle, but with agreeing to the ready conclusions drawn from it. You demonstrate the general principle, but then conclude something along the lines of, "thus those genetically enabled to survive longer will produce more offspring with the trait", which evolves into, "thus the genetic trait for survivability will eventually take over the herd."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But the process depends on certain conclusions besides the statements. It depends on whether the statements are general tendencies, or whether they are actual (and reproducible) in most cases. I expect that you will follow your statements, sooner or later, with, "So, you see, evolution theory is valid", without proving that all the statements are valid, or applicable in most cases.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would like to think you are right. But even when I trust the motives behind what a person is trying to do, 'judging by myself' or according to what I sometimes find myself doing, I am suspicious of the tendency to jump logical steps. Once the framework is laid, is she then going to produce her conclusion as if she had proven it, or is she going to back up to show that 'tendency' is 'actuality'? In other words, is she going to say her conclusion is logical, in an if/then statement (if the statements are true, then the conclusion is logical), and thus that TOE is <u>possible</u>, or is she going to say that 'since' "you agreed that the statements are true" thus I have no reason to disagree with TOE.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mark Quayle, post: 76865190, member: 410020"] Of the fast-reproducing organisms, and all other things being equal, yes, or, if "survival trait" means, among other things, reproducibility (i.e. non-sterile). "Would tend to be" is not the same as "will be". Or maybe if you said, "All other things being equal..." That's obvious, and I'm sorry to cause you to belabor the point. My reservations have little to do with understanding the general principle, but with agreeing to the ready conclusions drawn from it. You demonstrate the general principle, but then conclude something along the lines of, "thus those genetically enabled to survive longer will produce more offspring with the trait", which evolves into, "thus the genetic trait for survivability will eventually take over the herd." But the process depends on certain conclusions besides the statements. It depends on whether the statements are general tendencies, or whether they are actual (and reproducible) in most cases. I expect that you will follow your statements, sooner or later, with, "So, you see, evolution theory is valid", without proving that all the statements are valid, or applicable in most cases. I would like to think you are right. But even when I trust the motives behind what a person is trying to do, 'judging by myself' or according to what I sometimes find myself doing, I am suspicious of the tendency to jump logical steps. Once the framework is laid, is she then going to produce her conclusion as if she had proven it, or is she going to back up to show that 'tendency' is 'actuality'? In other words, is she going to say her conclusion is logical, in an if/then statement (if the statements are true, then the conclusion is logical), and thus that TOE is [U]possible[/U], or is she going to say that 'since' "you agreed that the statements are true" thus I have no reason to disagree with TOE. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Statements About Evolution
Top
Bottom