5 edits
Originally posted by black beetle=======================
Hey jaywill, hi again my friend!
It's wrong to assume that an eye is a kind of telescope; an eye is an eye, and that means that it works (and sometimes it works as a telescope too) as it works in order to permit us to survive, first of all; the telescope is designed by human beings in order to let them fulfill their needs afterall.
The origin of L existence will be prooved at full beyond any doubt I will stick to the theory of evolution;
Hey jaywill, hi again my friend!
========================
Hi.
======================================
It's wrong to assume that an eye is a kind of telescope;
=========================================
Huh? Did I say that ?
I think I said something about comparing the eye with a camara. Did you mean to say that it is wrong to assume an eye to be a kind of camara?
================================
an eye is an eye, and that means that it works (and sometimes it works as a telescope too) as it works in order to permit us to survive,
===================================
I have no argument with that.
So?
===================================
first of all; the telescope is designed by human beings in order to let them fulfill their needs afterall.
=====================================
Did I say otherwise? I don't think I ever mentioned a telescope at all. Do you have me confused with someone else?
======================================
The origin of Life is another issue and has nothing to do with the theory of the evolution;
=====================================
It use to until it became an unsolvable problem. Now all the young militant evolutionists are strictly trained to repeat "Origin of life has NOTHING to do with Evolution."
My opinion has long been that some militant Evolutionists began to distance themselves from the issue of life's origin.
Actually I don't think I mentioned origin of life in the first place. It sounds to me like you are just eager to utilize your most familiar responses.
You asked me about origin of life, and I SAID I was not necessarily talking about that. I did ask what was the first instance of Natural Selection. Is that why you are putting up the Origin issue to shoot at?
===================================
No, I cannot proove that "god" doesn;t exist. However it is more possible that he doesn't,
===================================
I don't think so at all.
If there is a cosmic buck that has to stop somewhere, I think it stops with God. This means God is the last and most responsible One for being and existence of all things.
=============================
and until his existence will be prooved at ful
l beyond any doubt I will stick to the theory of evolution;
=================================
I don't think an evolutionary mechanism of some type necessarily has to rule out the existence of an Intelligent Designer such as God.
Originally posted by black beetleSo far I don't think you have proven anything with the theory of
Hey jaywill, hi again my friend!
It's wrong to assume that an eye is a kind of telescope; an eye is an eye, and that means that it works (and sometimes it works as a telescope too) as it works in order to permit us to survive, first of all; the telescope is designed by human beings in order to let them fulfill their needs afterall.
The origin of L ...[text shortened]... existence will be prooved at full beyond any doubt I will stick to the theory of evolution;
evolution either, at least here.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonActually, this sometimes a bit too simplistic of an explanation because, perhaps surprisingly, there is now good evidence that evolution often works at a group level as well as on an individual level
[b]…What determines that there should be survival of species in the first place? …
Nothing -which is partly why species sometimes go extinct. The force of evolution doesn’t tend to necessarily make a species AS A WHOLE better able to survive (sometimes it doesn’t!) -it merely tends to make individuals acquire characteristics that make them be ...[text shortened]... ething to do with the creation of this diversity of life is rendered an unnecessary hypothesis.[/b]
This is really an aside to the thrust of this discussion, but I'm very interested: what's the "good evidence" to which you refer? Could you please supply the reference or links to the journal articles? You can PM me if you'd rather supply it that way.
I'm very interested in discussions on the "levels" at which evolution proceeds. Based on my previous studies, I am inclined to think it is neither the group nor the individual; rather, at the level of the replicator itself (in the sense of first-order replicator, it's not just the group that fails to qualify; the individual doesn't qualify either).
Originally posted by KellyJayDr. Geoffry Bourne, Director of the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, in 1996 stated that apes and monkeys are the evolutionary descendents of men due to the fact that fossils of man predate his supposed ape-like ancestors (Australopithecus and Homo erectus) and that the human fetus bears certain resemblence to the ape.
Cool it does not border on myth, and you have the sequence we
can look at that shows how man got the eyes he has from what
creature?
Kelly
In his book BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER (1970) the anatomist Sir Solly Zuckerman ranked the various fields of science in order of decreasing scientific validity. His order went; physics, chemistry, biology, social science and then he said:
"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like ESP or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is some times able to believe several contradictory things at the same time".
Harvard anthropologist Dr. David Pilbeam stated in a recent review of Richard Leakey's book ORIGINS in American Scientist (66:379 May June 1978) that it was "a clear statement of our current consensus view of human evolution and remarkably up to date; my reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology. But introductory books - or book reviews - are hardly the place to argue that perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark: that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."
On the other hand Richard Leaky has point out that the cast of apes considered to be ancestral to man will continue to change, as it has in the past, but that is not important to evolutionism as long as the central "dogma" and its profound implications remains: Man is a beast.
Originally posted by jaywillCamera you said alright, and mistakenly I was talking for telescopes, sorry for that. So I meant "camera" instead of telescope;
[b]=======================
Hey jaywill, hi again my friend!
========================
Hi.
======================================
It's wrong to assume that an eye is a kind of telescope;
=========================================
Huh? Did I say that ?
I think I said something about comparing the eye with a camara. Did you mean ...[text shortened]... ssarily has to rule out the existence of an Intelligent Designer such as God.[/b]
The origin of Life is even bigger problem than the theory of the evolution. Over here I prefer the explanations oferred by the anthropic principle;
Fianally you said "I don't think an evolutionary mechanism of some type necessarily has to rule out the existence of an Intelligent Designer such as God". But if this is right, then "god" must be the laziest creature of the universe because all "his" job is done through the theory of evolution instead of his will;
Originally posted by LemonJelloI have been searching the net for the evidence I once read about in new scientist magazine but cannot seem to find it -but I know it exists because I read about it with great interest at the time. The evidence consisted partly of computer simulations that demonstrated in what conditions group selection could work and partly in the form of empirical evidence although I honestly don’t remember what that empirical evidence was.
[b]Actually, this sometimes a bit too simplistic of an explanation because, perhaps surprisingly, there is now good evidence that evolution often works at a group level as well as on an individual level
This is really an aside to the thrust of this discussion, but I'm very interested: what's the "good evidence" to which you refer? Could you pleas ...[text shortened]... it's not just the group that fails to qualify; the individual doesn't qualify either).[/b]
These two links rather annoyingly don’t seem to allow you to see the actual evidence itself but it’s a start:
http://integralpraxis.blogspot.com/2007/11/rethinking-group-selection-in-evolution_05.html
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache😕W7eXOcZ9bYJ:www.altruists.org/d825+%22Group+selection%22+Evidence+evolution+newScientist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk&lr=lang_en
This link just says a bit about what “group selection” is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill…The fortunate mutations would be vastly in the minority. …
Mr. Hamilton,
The one who can't take a reference to the Bible. I'll play in your ballpark for a little while. But I don't expect to change your mind about anything.
[b]===================================
Nothing -which is partly why species sometimes go extinct. The force of evolution doesn’t tend to necessarily make a species AS A WHOLE better ometimes -
"You you? We don't know that yet. Got an easier question ?"[/b]
Correct. Most new mutations are detrimental to the individuals that have them.
…Most mutations adversely effect the species. …
No. Most new mutations are detrimental to the individuals that have them but that just means that natural selection eliminates them from the gene-pool well before they spread to the whole population of the species. Thus those new mutations that are detrimental to the individuals are no threat to the species as a whole.
A very tiny but not insignificant minority of new mutations would be immediately beneficial to the individual that has them and that would mean natural selection would select for such new mutations until virtually all members of that species has them. Such mutations that are be immediately beneficial to the individual that has them are usually but NOT necessarily good for the species as a whole when most members of that species have those mutations.
Originally posted by black beetle===================================
Camera you said alright, and mistakenly I was talking for telescopes, sorry for that. So I meant "camera" instead of telescope;
The origin of Life is even bigger problem than the theory of the evolution. Over here I prefer the explanations oferred by the anthropic principle;
Fianally you said "I don't think an evolutionary mechanism of some type ...[text shortened]... erse because all "his" job is done through the theory of evolution instead of his will;
But if this is right, then "god" must be the laziest creature of the universe because all "his" job is done through the theory of evolution instead of his will;
=========================================
Kind of like "If God did it one way I don't like Him. And if He did it another way I still don't like Him."
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton===============================
[b]…The fortunate mutations would be vastly in the minority. …
Correct. Most new mutations are detrimental to the individuals that have them.
…Most mutations adversely effect the species. …
No. Most new mutations are detrimental to the individuals that have them but that just means that natural selection eliminates them from the ...[text shortened]... essarily good for the species as a whole when most members of that species have those mutations.[/b]
No. Most new mutations are detrimental to the individuals that have them but that just means that natural selection eliminates them from the gene-pool well before they spread to the whole population of the species.
==================================
Did natural selection have the health of the entire gene pool in mind?
How does it know what selection to make for the good of the gene pool?
(The words "know" and "mind" are used for lack of how else to phrase the matter.)
As much as you can explain in a posting environment of this nature.
=============================================
Thus those new mutations that are detrimental to the individuals are no threat to the species as a whole.
==============================================
How does natural selection "know" what will be detremental to the species as a whole as opposed to the individual?
==================================
A very tiny but not insignificant minority of new mutations would be immediately beneficial to the individual that has them and that would mean natural selection would select for such new mutations until virtually all members of that species has them.
=====================================
What causes natural selection to discriminate between individual benefit and species benefit ?
=================================
Such mutations that are be immediately beneficial to the individual that has them are usually but NOT necessarily good for the species as a whole when most members of that species have those mutations.
===========================================
Discribe to me the junction point where the "decision" is made to preserve a useful mutation.
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…Did natural selection have the health of the entire gene pool in MIND?
[b]===============================
No. Most new mutations are detrimental to the individuals that have them but that just means that natural selection eliminates them from the gene-pool well before they spread to the whole population of the species.
==================================
Did natural selection have the health of the entire gene pool ibe to me the junction point where the "decision" is made to preserve a useful mutation.[/b]
How does it KNOW what selection to make for the good of the gene pool?
(The words "know" and "mind" are used for lack of how else to phrase the matter.)
… (my emphasis)
OK -So “MIND” and “KNOW” is meant purely in a metaphorical sense here.
To answer the first question:
-even when using “MIND” in this purely metaphorical sense, the answer is simply “No”.
-And to answer the second question:
-even when using “KNOW” in this purely metaphorical sense, the answer is it doesn’t “KNOW” what is for the good of the gene pool because, as I have already said, evolution doesn’t operate directly on the species level.
…How does natural selection "know" what will be detrimental to the species as a whole as opposed to the individual? . …
Again, even when using “KNOW” in this purely metaphorical sense, the answer is it doesn’t “KNOW” this.
Natural selection simply eliminates those mutations that are detrimental to the individuals from the gene-pool well before they spread to the whole population of the species. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that all those mutations that are beneficial to the individual are also beneficial to the species as a whole. However, having said that, not surprisingly, most such mutations that are beneficial to the individual are also beneficial to the species as a whole.
…What causes natural selection to DISCRIMINATE between individual benefit and species benefit ? … (my emphasis)
The word “DISCRIMINATE” is an inappropriate word to use in this context -that is because natural selection simply doesn’t respond to nor “recognise” (“recognise” purely in the metaphorical sense) in any sense the benefits to the species as a whole.
A pile of loose snow on a mountain may respond to a load noise by avalanching down but it doesn’t respond to somebody quietly facing a written sign with the word “load noise” on it at the snow by avalanching down. But it would be a strange use of the word “DISCRIMINATE” to ask :
“What causes the snow to DISCRIMINATE between load noise and the written words “load noise”?”
Because the answer is it simply doesn’t respond to nor “recognise” the written words “load noise“.
…Discribe to me the JUNCTION POINT where the "decision" is made to preserve a useful mutation.…
Obviously you mean "decision" here in a purely metaphorical sense.
But I am not sure what you mean by “JUNCTION POINT ”; -do you mean at what point in time it becomes almost inevitable for a useful mutation to be preserved by natural selection in the long run? -if so, then that would generally be at what moment of time the prospects of the first individual/individuals that have this useful mutation will have of almost inevitably reproducing to pass on that useful mutation onto the next generation and for it to be almost inevitably that that next generation will pass on that useful mutation to the next generation and ...and the next... ...and the next... and so on.
Perhaps we should move this discussion to a more appropriate thread? 🙂
Originally posted by jaywillYes, and furthermore, jaywill, this is kind of like: if "gods' will" becomes a fact due to the theory of the evolution, then this theory stands for good and therefore it must be fully accepted by the creationists;
[b]===================================
But if this is right, then "god" must be the laziest creature of the universe because all "his" job is done through the theory of evolution instead of his will;
=========================================
Kind of like "If God did it one way I don't like Him. And if He did it another way I still don't like Him."[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetle====================================
Yes, and furthermore, jaywill, this is kind of like: if "gods' will" becomes a fact due to the theory of the evolution, then this theory stands for good and therefore it must be fully accepted by the creationists;
Yes, and furthermore, jaywill, this is kind of like: if "gods' will" becomes a fact due to the theory of the evolution, then this theory stands for good and therefore it must be fully accepted by the creationists;
=======================================
Well, I believe that God is a divine designer of nature. I think we should study things to discover how they work. Believing a Creator doesn't do anything to eliminate my curiosity, though I am not a professional scientist.
I do not believe that a powerful enough telescope will reveal God out there arranging things. Nor do I believe that a powerful enough microscope will reveal His angels busy arranging atoms.
Though it may break our hearts to realize it, He just may be so intellegent that He keeps the universe running in a way that we cannot directly figure out. That may be a big blow to our pride that we cannot figure out just where God is behind the scenes.
God does not forbid man's scientific research as far as man can go. And I believe at certain points in history God probably added a little help if it was related to His will.
Since I tend to be verbose I will cut this response here.