The 'evolution' of food

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Selectively bred dogs are called 'designer dogs', design being the operative word.
Can designer children be far away?

There is already some embryo selection going on, but the future is probably direct genetic modification. Possible implications for human evolution...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If you still find that fantastical, why?[/QUOTE]

There is already some embryo selection going on, but the future is probably direct genetic modification. Possible implications for human evolution...

Isn't that redefining evolution?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Isn't that redefining evolution?

It may alter our evolution, but our evolution is being altered by our global lifestyles anyhow.

It doesn't 'redefine' evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It may alter our evolution, but our evolution is being altered by our global lifestyles anyhow.

It doesn't 'redefine' evolution.

If man forces biological change against the will of nature is it still 'evolution'?

 

[Nithavela]

If man forces biological change against the will of nature is it still 'evolution'?

Man is part of nature.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If man forces biological change against the will of nature is it still 'evolution'?

I don't see in what sense it's 'against the will of nature' - nature doesn't have a will.

It could be considered evolution if it affects the germ line, i.e. the changes are heritable. Strictly, the changes would have to spread into the population at large (many generations) for it to count as evolution.

I suspect there will be strong ethical arguments against such a development, but that somewhere it will happen (I think a Chinese scientist has already done this with two baby girls, to universal condemnation).

 

[Shemjaza]

I can live with that.

Then stop pretending you have probabilities and analysis. Just announce your faith and feelings honestly and proudly.

Pretending you have evidence to back up your faith just makes your faith seem weak when the lack of evidence is revealed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then stop pretending you have probabilities and analysis. Just announce your faith and feelings honestly and proudly.

Pretending you have evidence to back up your faith just makes your faith seem weak when the lack of evidence is revealed.

The evidence is in the obvious.

 

[Shemjaza]

The evidence is in the obvious.

False.

You can't define it, only talk about how you feel. Try to be honest.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

False.

You can't define it, only talk about how you feel. Try to be honest.

I am. I see purposeful creation. I'm not blind.

 

[pitabread]

The evidence is in the obvious.

Generally when someone appeals to obviousness, it's a sign that they can't define what they are referring to. Which is further a sign they don't have an argument.

 

[Kylie]

The evidence is in the obvious.

Then you should have no trouble explaining it.

 

[Kylie]

I am. I see purposeful creation. I'm not blind.

You see reality and assume it was created with a purpose. You have yet to justify that assumption.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then you should have no trouble explaining it.

Neither of us can explain what we believe, only that we believe it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You see reality and assume it was created with a purpose. You have yet to justify that assumption.

The evidence is self justifying.

 

[Kylie]

Neither of us can explain what we believe, only that we believe it.

You said there was evidence, and you said it was obvious.

Now you say you are incapable of explaining it. How can you be incapable of explaining it when there is obvious evidence?

Perhaps you were wrong when you said there was obvious evidence?

 

[Kylie]

The evidence is self justifying.

You just said you can't explain it. You are contradicting yourself.

How can you be incapable of explaining something for which there is obvious evidence that justifies the claims you are making?

 

[Shemjaza]

Neither of us can explain what we believe, only that we believe it.

Don't project your own inconsistencies onto others.

Evolution is consistent with evidence and explicable. Your bald assertions about how you feel about anatomy or food are not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You said there was evidence, and you said it was obvious.

Now you say you are incapable of explaining it. How can you be incapable of explaining it when there is obvious evidence?

Perhaps you were wrong when you said there was obvious evidence?

Both are true. I know that it works but I don't know how it works.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Don't project your own inconsistencies onto others.

Evolution is consistent with evidence and explicable. Your bald assertions about how you feel about anatomy or food are not.

Care to accompany me on a man-on-the-street interview on the subject? We can even conduct the interviews on a college campus if you wish.