Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Evolution Thread

Announcements Posted on
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kly45)
    No no no, I'm afraid you DO have a lack of understanding of natural selection. Have you studied the theory in detail?

    Natural selection is the theory that animals evolve over time. The reason? Because the random mutations and passed on traits of their parents help it survive longer or less in regard to their current environment. The ones with the "fittest" traits survive and reproduce their genes longer. Tell me, where in this theory does it say that animals evolve for no reason?

    (a) As a reason for the meaning of evolution, no it doesn't explain that but that would be question begging anyway.

    (b) Does evolution explain the reason for animals changing over time? Yes, the ones best suited to survival survive.

    As I said, if you are going with reason (a), then you are adding more than what's adequate, unless you can prove that you aren't question begging.
    Well, it is just blankly asserted that animals "evolve over time" with absolutely NO REASON given for these "random mutations" - and every attempt by others to supply one is vehemently resisted. Is this not so?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kly45)
    No no no, I'm afraid you DO have a lack of understanding of natural selection. Have you studied the theory in detail?

    Natural selection is the theory that animals evolve over time. The reason? Because the random mutations and passed on traits of their parents help it survive longer or less in regard to their current environment. The ones with the "fittest" traits survive and reproduce their genes longer. Tell me, where in this theory does it say that animals evolve for no reason?

    (a) As a reason for the meaning of evolution, no it doesn't explain that but that would be question begging anyway.

    (b) Does evolution explain the reason for animals changing over time? Yes, the ones best suited to survival survive.

    As I said, if you are going with reason (a), then you are adding more than what's adequate, unless you can prove that you aren't question begging.
    a. I don't think you actually understand what "begging the question" means. Here is how it is described in wiki:

    Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

    So, pray tell, how is one begging the question by asking the question of how random mutations arise in the first place?

    b. What evolution explains is why animals change into the forms they do from different ones - NOT why they change at all, much less why they arose.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kly45)
    Well it's what you're interpretation of the facts are. Many philosophers and scientists would disagree
    So what? Unless they're able to logically fault my arguments they would merely be expressing personal opinions - which aren't worth very much, are they?
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Why does this thread even exist?

    Evolution happened and will continue to occur, what more is there to discuss.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kly45)
    This is still asserting. Why are all apprehensions of reality clearer or dimmer manifestations of supreme reality? And what exactly do you mean by "supreme reality"?
    Oh brother! There is only Supreme Reality or subordinate reality. An illusion, for instance, is subordinate to the thing that generates it. It cannot exist without this thing. But its generator can exist without the illusion.

    Supreme Reality Exists of necessity. It is how Existence REALLY IS - whether we perceive It or not. Subordinate realities are subsequent effects of Supreme Reality Everything that exists belongs to either Supreme Reality or a subordinate reality. In either situation, Supreme Reality necessarily Exists. Hope that helps.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    Well, it is just blankly asserted that animals "evolve over time" with absolutely NO REASON given for these "random mutations"
    Do you understand anything about DNA replication?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
    Then how do you explain Alfred Russel Wallace who developed a theory of evolution by natural selection in conjunction with Charles Darwin? Wallace was also a disbeliever in the gods described by religion, and also in the indoctrination and set way of thinking associated with religion of that day:

    " I remain an utter disbeliever in almost all that you consider the most sacred truths. I will pass over as utterly contemptible the oft-repeated accusation that sceptics shut out evidence because they will not be governed by the morality of Christianity. To the mass of mankind religion of some kind is a necessity. But whether there be a God and whatever be His nature; whether we have an immortal soul or not, or whatever may be our state after death, I can have no fear of having to suffer for the study of nature and the search for truth, or believe that those will be better off in a future state who have lived in the belief of doctrines inculcated from childhood, and which are to them rather a matter of blind faith than intelligent conviction"

    Wallace and Darwin developed their theory independently, but unlike Darwin, Wallace believed in transmutation of species before his journey as a naturalist. Once they heard of each other, they did set up correspondence, even becoming friends, and stimulated each other's theories and ideas. It was even Wallace who coined the term "Darwinism"
    Although they developed their theories at the same time, and eventually linked up to debate and think about evolution - Darwin did often disagree with what Wallace had to say, but nevertheless, both were two of the greatest naturalistic minds of that era and it would have been a sin to ignore their ideas.

    Further unlike Darwin, Wallace didn't suffer much bereavement in his family until after he developed his own theory of evolution, so emotional turmoil cannot be used as ground to attack the development of scientifically-based atheism.
    I don't see how the history of the life of one man - or even several - is reliable evidence that a particular theory is true or false. It is your prerogative to choose whatever path you wish in life - and accept the inevitable consequences that unavoidably follow also.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pangol)
    Do you understand anything about DNA replication?
    Does it JUST HAPPEN - or is it driven by something? If the latter, then that's the more interesting subject of study, isn't it. I always prefer to deal with the organ grinder - not his monkeys.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n1r4v)
    Not at all personally, it seems like you're looking at quantum physics and trying to apply that at a macro level.

    Is there nobody that shares your philosophy? Deepak Chopra maybe?
    Quantum physics is widely applied at the macro-level already today.

    Deepak is actually quite a brilliant man. That's not to say he has all the answers though - which latter he doesn't claim.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    So, you made it up at random and now you claim it's self-evident rather than attempting to justify yourself. Good GUESSING there.



    You have presupposed the existence of your god as part of the justification for your god. How novel!
    I've no idea what you're on about. Saying that Existence exists is hardly a presupposition. It's an undeniable FACT!
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    What drives evolution is the need to survive? Basics surely.
    And where does this "need to survive" come from - atoms and molecules?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Evolutionary theory has nothing to say on Early Cosmology, it never had and never will. Ergo, it can't support or reject any assertion that the Big Bang was caused by God........
    Well then, on what basis do darwinists make the assertion that they have proof that God does not Exist?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Invocation of quantum effects that are useful and denial of ones that aren't isn't really a cogent argument. If you want to make quantum physics a macro-phenomenon then you have to take it in its entirity, including all the bits that make it fundamentally uncertain and as destructive as creative.
    I'm not sure which bits of quantum theory you think I'm leaving out. But also have you not noticed that intelligent beings can be both creative and destructive - and do not always act intelligently but can be arbitrary sometimes? That is the nature of free will. Inertia matter is utterly incapable of any of that - and is completely predictable; at least in principle.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Facticity)
    What? Judging from everything you have said so far, none of your arguments stretch outside of the fallacies involved in teleological (intelligent and purposeful design)/cosmological, line of reasoning. No presumption was made, its right in front of me. And there was certainly no blindfolding of my consciousness.
    I note you have no actual logical argument to present here to back your claims up.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    So, you made it up at random and now you claim it's self-evident rather than attempting to justify yourself. Good GUESSING there......
    Whatever are you on about? What am I supposed to have made up - the FACT that the Universe Exists?
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    I note you have no actual logical argument to present here to back your claims up.
    :facepalm2: Which claims? I haven't claimed anything of note. If you are referring to your comments, just scroll up and you can see where you have used these arguments.

    As for their fallacious nature, anyone with basic understanding of these arguments will also know they are heavily flawed.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Facticity)
    :facepalm2: Which claims? I haven't claimed anything of note. If you are referring to your comments, just scroll up and you can see where you have used these arguments.

    As for their fallacious nature, anyone with basic understanding of these arguments will also know they are heavily flawed.
    Nothing LOGICAL to present then, eh?
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    Nothing LOGICAL to present then, eh?
    Logical about WHAT? WHAT is it you want logical argument for? TELL ME.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Facticity)
    Logical about WHAT? WHAT is it you want logical argument for? TELL ME.
    To be able to make your criticism of something have real value, you need to present clear LOGICAL arguments exposing its flaws - not just blank assertions that it is flawed, don't you agree? You've criticised my arguments - but where are YOUR logical arguments to buttress your position? That's my point.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    To be able to make your criticism of something have real value, you need to present clear LOGICAL arguments exposing its flaws - not just blank assertions that it is flawed, don't you agree? You've criticised my arguments - but where are YOUR logical arguments to buttress your position? That's my point.
    You haven't answered what I asked. I asked, what argument you want me to expose. All I said is that you used the teleological and cosmological arguments which are voraciously known to be flawed. If you are, in all honesty, asking me to show you how they are flawed, then I don't think I want to have such a discussion. I don't think you have a very good understanding of what logic is, let alone how it works. This is the evolution thread anyway, not a place for proof of God arguments

    Please don't ask me to logically prove that. If you knew anything about logic, you'd understand such a question is, by nature, illogical.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: August 27, 2014
New on TSR

Strictly iPlayer

Will you still watch if some BBC programmes go online only?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.