Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't see myself going against what you call natural selection in anything I posted on the
Hmm, well it's unfortunate you don't understand what natural selection is. If I didn't explain it well enough in my post, try this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Meanwhile, have you thought about which mechanism is responsible for preventing the proliferation of many beneficial mutations, thus changing the "base type" into something else?
subject, if I did correct me where I'm wrong. Just stating I don't understand is very vague
if you cannot be specific in my error why bother?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYes, I am denying it. If you don't know the difference between education and credentials then you need an education (not credentials).
Your exact words to KJ: "...you come along, with practically no science education to speak of..."
Are you actually denying that the above statement was referrring to KJs academic credentials??? LOL...
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
And I did no such thing.
04 May 16
Originally posted by moonbusNothing about change is good or bad on its own it is all about the results. You admit and I
KJ: "What is it about thinking well if the pace of change is slow it will be okay? Again getting back to my point of abruptly or gradually if you damage some part of a living system that is required to the point of it stops functioning or stops it from being useful to fulfill the job it had you have a dead end product."
Nothing whatever says that a change ...[text shortened]... extinct: their environment changed, they didn't and could not survive in the changed conditions.
had no reason to doubt you would that sometimes outside forces can end lives rather
quickly.
I've been telling you and others here that if life started during creation all of the living
systems were intact there are vital organs, and systems that are required for life.
Mucking around with vital systems will only result in three things, first nothing there could
be a tweak that adds nothing or subtracts from its function. The second is an improvement
and this can be a reality in all life NOT DENYING IT. The issue you that you have is that
the process is blind as has be stated here. It doesn't care what result will occur at any
change, but what we do know is that it is supposedly always making changes everywhere
and nothing is immune to them. Since this is true and we all agree that is how the
mutation process is working to suggest that you can tweak every vital system blindly non
stop it begs the question why you'd think death would not be the answer more times
than not verses an improved life?
Vital system and organs cannot be stopped or removed without damaging results, and
say that they are all subject to change without respect to how they are affected just
means that there is a time bomb waiting to end the lives when something like a value in a
heart is removed, or the veins can no longer support the blood pressure, or blood stops
clotting. You want to say only the good moves forward but you ignore that nothing stops
the bad outside of death and death will get all life if it is ruined by a blind process.
Adding a ever changing environment just adds to the odds of life not making it. If it does
change to fast all life that cannot survive do not, if the environment is static and the
mutations alter it so it cannot survive it does not, if the environment is always being altered
and life is too through mutation then you have not one but two things that have to line up
for life to survive. Again not a good recipe for the continuation of life to me it is just another
nail in the coffin on why evolution could not have started and continued with a common
ancestor.
04 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt didn't live on grass, and wasn't vegetarian. Its diet included milk and eggs.
Westbeau, G., Little Tyke: the story of a gentle vegetarian lioness, Theosophical Publishing House, IL, USA, 1986. (Information is drawn from pp. 3–6, 17, 32–35, 59–60, 113–114.)
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPlease we have covered this before and you acknowledge that there was NO means by
Alright, let's see where you stop keeping track. So a harmful mutation can occur, on this we agree. Once it occurs, the organism whose DNA experienced a harmful mutation has a lower chance of reproducing, relatively speaking (this is just what "harmful mutation" means, in other words). This lower chance of reproducing will result in that harmful mutatio ...[text shortened]... some thought which mechanism would be responsible for preventing too many beneficial mutations?
which any lifeform would just hold on to good or bad mutations. The mutations do not
come one at a time and bad ones out number the good ones do they not? I'm sure there
are a ton that do nothing, but even a lot of nothing could be bad over time.
I've not lost track of anything I'm trying to keep you focused on everything moves forward
until it looses the ability too. Grand changes over time due to good mutations could only
occur if the bad changes also taking place don't end it, there are not two routes only
the lucky lifeforms get the good ones and the unlucky get the bad. The reason you don't
see bad ones sticking around is because they have ended the lives of those they were
in! That does NOT mean that the life that is still here only received good mutations it could
also mean that it was just lucky enough to maintain its status quo and not get screwed
with to the point of death which in my opinion if far more likely than over time without any
plan or direction a blind process built a brain.
04 May 16
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, you are quite right that I can't give any reason why the universe exists or should exist. I don't feel any pressing need to give a reason either. As far as I am concerned, it just does exist and it doesn't need any reason to. It's only humans who hanker after reasons--some humans, anyway.
Truth be told your views on life I think require more faith than anything on God and all that surrounds Him. I accept God created everything in this universe and God Himself is
eternal without a beginning. You don't have even a remote idea how everything started,
where did it all come from, at best you got a process and it can take you back so far and tha ...[text shortened]... ts it live, IN
THE MIDST of living where a food supply was, and on and on. Yes, you have faith!
As to a cause of its being here, well, there isn't any evidence that God was it. All you've got in favor of that claim is a bronze-age myth left over from a time when people didn't have the faintest idea how things really work or how old and big the universe is.
We've been over this point again and again here at SF: you evidently think we cannot know how things work if we don't know how they began--i.e., that we cannot know how life came to be if we don't how the universe came to be, hence Creationism. Well, I don't know how the universe came to be (and I rather think twhitehead won't claim to know that either); but you're way off the mark if you think that prevents us from knowing a very great deal about how things work in general apart from knowing how it all began, and it certainly doesn't prevent us from exposing hokum based on what we know about how things work. (For example, the idea that the number of species we see today could have been packed into an ark, or that the lions would not have eaten the antelopes within days of debarking the ark--is hokum.)
You say I have faith; 'tis a strange use of the word. Animals just popping into existence out of nothing; now that's faith. It's okay by me if you believe that's what happened, no skin off my nose. But there's no evidence that that's how it happened. I suppose that if I saw fully-formed animals popping into existence out of nothing, I might think something divine (or supernatural at any rate) was going on. But nobody's ever seen fully-formed animals popping into existence out of nothing, including whoever wrote Genesis--whoever wrote Genesis wasn't there.
04 May 16
Originally posted by KellyJayThe bottom line to that rather long ramble is that nothing guarantees that life will continue. Odds are that all life will be extinct someday.
Nothing about change is good or bad on its own it is all about the results. You admit and I
had no reason to doubt you would that sometimes outside forces can end lives rather
quickly.
I've been telling you and others here that if life started during creation all of the living
systems were intact there are vital organs, and systems that are required f ...[text shortened]... ail in the coffin on why evolution could not have started and continued with a common
ancestor.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
04 May 16
5 edits
Originally posted by moonbus
Yes, you are quite right that I can't give any reason why the universe exists or should exist. I don't feel any pressing need to give a reason either. As far as I am concerned, it just does exist and it doesn't need any reason to. It's only humans who hanker after reasons--some humans, anyway.
Do you ever ask yourself why it should be that way with human beings? I mean no cow in the pasture seems to be asking "What is the MEANING of this grass ?"
Why among life do we humans tend to have this question of meaning rise up in us?
As to a cause of its being here, well, there isn't any evidence that God was it. All you've got in favor of that claim is a bronze-age myth left over from a time when people didn't have the faintest idea how things really work or how old and big the universe is.
How did a "bronze age myth" accomplish this ?
Wise men (astrologers perhaps) came from far off and arrived in Jerusalem saying they were searching for a born king - the King of the Jews, (Matt. 2:1-12) because they saw His star. "His star" may have been a reference to the Gentile prophet Balaam prophesying about Israel's star in the book of Numbers centuries before.
Anyway, King Herod was concerned about someone being born a king in his domain without his permission. He gathered the experts in the Hebrews Bible and asked where a divinely born king should be looked for. They unanimously informed him that it was long expected that from Bethlehem a King of Israel should be born.
Now our of Bethlehem one Jesus was born whose life and words have had a cataclysmic impact on the world. And the prophesy the scholars pointed to was this:
"But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, So little to be among the thousands of Judah,
From you there will come forth to Me He who is to be Ruler in Israel; And His goings forth are from ancient times, From the days of eternity." (Micah 5:2)
Now that was written between 735 and 700 B.C.
How did a "bronze age myth" accomplish this ? I mean that such a candidate for the Messiah of Israel Who claimed to be the eternal God manifest in the flesh (and acted like it), orchestrate things to arrange His birth according to a prophecy given seven centuries prior ?
That is a pretty impressive trick for a "bronze age myth". How was it done ?
04 May 16
Originally posted by moonbusHave never drank dandelion sir, but did once elope with one. (Was a crazy summer, a long time ago, when flower power was all the rage and a man could walk down the road in lime green pantaloons without turning a single head).
This was after you had imbibed dandelion wine, was it?
But I digress.
04 May 16
Originally posted by moonbusYet you believe it could begin on a harsh world, in an unknown environment, change
The bottom line to that rather long ramble is that nothing guarantees that life will continue. Odds are that all life will be extinct someday.
without direction having all of the modifications turn life into more complex forms, while
being able to eat and reproduce, and have all of the luxury of the known universe's macro
and micro forces and content position in such a way it could flourish through our distant
past unto today? If you can accept all of that why would you acknowledge nothing
guarantees that life will continue? The odds of something going wrong and killing it all off
were much greater when there wasn't much life here and the support of environment
wasn't in tune with much of life now so that some lives thrive in their little niches.
04 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, I am denying it. If you don't know the difference between education and credentials then you need an education (not credentials).
Yes, I am denying it. If you don't know the difference between education and credentials then you need an education (not credentials).
[b]Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the ...[text shortened]... . Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
And I did no such thing.[/b]
Yet another ad hominem. Keep them coming.
And I did no such thing.
Yes you did.
04 May 16
Originally posted by moonbusOdds are that all life will be extinct someday.
The bottom line to that rather long ramble is that nothing guarantees that life will continue. Odds are that all life will be extinct someday.
Yet against all odds it magically appeared out of nothing and evolved to the complexity it is today. When did the odds turn and why?