There are two kinds of evolutionists: Those who deny the massive convergence in biology, and those who deny the implications of the massive convergence in biology. Let me explain. The similarities between species are one of the favorite evidences of evolutionist's. They argue these similarities, sometimes striking, reveal the underlying evolutionary pathways. There's only one problem: Striking similarities also show up in patterns that cannot be ascribed to common descent. In fact, such convergences are abundant in biology. But you would hardly know it from talking to evolutionists who say the species form a neat common descent pattern. Yes, they do fit a neat common descent pattern with the data are pre filtered according to the neat common descent pattern. And what about those similarites that do not fit the pattern? No big deal. According to evolutionists, those similarities evolved independently. Here is a typical example dealing with venom glands in poisonous catfish:Wright's analyses indicate that there are at least two independent evolutionary origins of catfish venom glands. In addition, the toxic peptides show strong similarities with, and might be derived from, previously characterized toxins found in catfish epidermal secretions. "Further examination of the chemical composition of the venoms will provide valuable insight into the mechanisms and potential selective factors driving venom evolution in fishes," comments Wright.
How did such similar glands evolve independently? By the action of natural selection, evolutionists will tell you. With similar environments you have similar selective factors and, therefore, similar designs.
This explanation avoids the awkward detail that natural selection never created anything. It kills off the designs that don't work, but the selected designs had to be created, one step at a time, in the first place. Those steps don't simply appear spontaneously given selective factors, no matter how many times evolutionists suggest this.
So we must believe evolution is continually generating untold myriad designs from which to choose. It is mostly worthless junk since evolution is all a fluke in the first place, but rare gems luckily appear now and then, and sometimes they are strikingly similar. How odd. Oh well, I guess we just live in the right universe.
There are evolutionists who deny the massive convergence in biology, and those who deny the implications of the massive convergence in biology. Religion drives science, and it matters.
"This explanation avoids the awkward detail that natural selection never created anything. It kills off the designs that don't work, but the selected designs had to be created, one step at a time, in the first place. Those steps don't simply appear spontaneously given selective factors, no matter how many times evolutionists suggest this."
ReplyDeleteNo argument here, that's standard Darwinian evolution theory. Variation (now known to be caused by mutations to DNA and other factors) creates new information and natural selection sieves out the information that doesn't work and keeps the good stuff through the simple expedient of trying to use the new DNA to operate the organism.
You appear to be amazed that there is more than one way to make a strong venom from toxins in epidural secretions and venom glands to house it in. Personally, I would be very surprised if there was only one way.
Well, after all, "With "evolutino," all things are possible!"
ReplyDeleteO'Leary fetishist: "You appear to be amazed that there is more than one way to make a strong venom from toxins in epidural secretions and venom glands to house it in. Personally, I would be very surprised if there was only one way."
ReplyDeleteAnd this DarwinDefender appears to have skipped right over the point ... even though he quoted it.
In fact, the O'Leary fetishist actually said: "No argument here, that's standard Darwinian evolution theory" in reference to Mr Hunter's statements:
ReplyDeleteC.Hunter: "This explanation avoids the awkward detail that natural selection never created anything. It kills off the designs that don't work, but the selected designs had to be created, one step at a time, in the first place. Those steps don't simply appear spontaneously given selective factors, no matter how many times evolutionists suggest this."
DarwinDefender: "No argument here, that's standard Darwinian evolution theory"
Indeed! It is "standard Darwinian evolution theory" (ahem!) to imply and even assert that "evolutionary steps" "arise" "in response" to "evolutionary pressures." Which was Mr Hunter's point ... that, and that the assertion is both absurd on its face and contrary to Darwinism's formalization.
Hey, Ilion, welcome back. Same as always, I see. I googled "With evolution all things are possible" and got only three hits, all from religious sites.
ReplyDeleteOne was from www.seekfind.net/EvolutionismTheCultDisquisedAsScienceWhichItIsNot.html, the second was from evangelicaloutpost.com and the third was from forums.catholic.com.
I'm sure you have a citation from an evolutionary source of that quote, right? Or else you'll do the right thing and retract it and apologize, right?
The "evolutionary steps" are random with regard to survival and they're more or less continuous. The only way to stop them would be to have perfect reproduction of DNA, but that's virtually impossible.
ReplyDeleteNatural selection, on the other hand, DOES respond to the environment if that's what you mean by evolutionary pressures.
DJ Mullen stated:
ReplyDelete"Variation (now known to be caused by mutations to DNA and other factors) creates new information and natural selection sieves out the information that doesn't work and keeps the good stuff through the simple expedient of trying to use the new DNA to operate the organism."
I can't seem to find where you showed where the original information came from??? You know, before those wonderful mutations (genetic mitsakes) could allegedly build up the genome.
BTW, next time you have x-rays taken at your dentist's office, ask them why they are putting a lead vest on you prior to taking them...and the next time you visit your physician's office, ask him why you should wear sunscreen while out in the sun. Then ask him/her why we have 10,000 mutation-causing illnesses, and how many more would exist if not for DNA repair...a correction system that just happened to 'evolve' apparently early on in life to hinder further evolution. Whew! We dodged a bullet there...by pure random chance, of course.
music1028, read your Dembski. If you have a string of DNA with, for examples sake, this pattern:
ReplyDeleteCATGCATGCATG and it changes to
CATTCATGCATG that second string contains new information. The fourth base pair is changed from a "G" to a "T".
And I want the lead apron because the other word for "new information" is "mutation". Mutations outside the somatic cells (sperm and eggs) never help anybody. Mutations to somatic cells are as apt to hurt your offspring as to help them.
That's where natural selection comes in, by killing off the "experiments" that don't work. But most of us would cheerfully give up the chance for a slightly improved son or daughter for the guarantee of a normal child.
Not a very nice system, actually. If it were designed, you'd expect it to be a lot better. And (to bring religion into it) if there was an omnipotent omniscient God in this universe, we would expect a better system than evolution.
music1028, excuse me, I misread your post. The ORIGINAL information in the DNA goes back a few billion years to whenever DNA started taking over the job of storing genetic information. Science doesn't know much about when or how this happened due to the lack of fossils. What does ID say? [sound of crickets chirping]
ReplyDelete"....that natural selection never created anything. It kills off the designs that don't work, but the selected designs had to be created, one step at a time, in the first place."
ReplyDeleteThis is correct. Natural selection doesn't create anything. It just waits for a mutation to happen and accepts it or discards it depending on environment situation. Mutations are random not guided for natural selection or the environment, so we need a scenario where the random mutation occurs and the fact that it must be and advantage for a particular environment situation, and that is not a simple an easy task.
Evolution - I LOVE IT! You cant make this stuff up!
ReplyDelete"It is unknown why certain people find areas of the body to be more ticklish than others; additionally, studies have shown that there is no significant difference in ticklishness between the genders.[18] In 1924 J.C. Gregory proposed that the most ticklish places on the body were also those areas that were the most vulnerable during hand-to-hand combat. He posited that ticklishness might confer an evolutionary advantage by enticing the individual to protect these areas."
By the way, the bottom of my feet are the most vulnerable during a fight!
As Darwin dealt with convergence in Origin of Species, one would think that this blog would indicate some awareness of his arguments on the subject.
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: They argue these similarities, sometimes striking, reveal the underlying evolutionary pathways.
First of all, the nested hierarchy is strongly supported for the vast majority of traits and organisms across eukaryotes. And convergence, as Darwin pointed out, is never complete, and we can determine the actual ancestry of an organism by close examination. To pick a simple example, a fish and a dolphin both have hydrodynamic shapes. But when we look closely, we see that the dolphin is clearly a mammal. Not only does it have mammary glands (with the associated maternal behavior), but it has lungs with muscular diaphragm, a four-chambered heart, a single bone in the lower jaw, hind limbs and hair follicles in development, highly developed brain, and so on.
Are you saying we can't properly classify dolphins as mammals because of hydrodynamic convergence?
Catfish evolved about 225 million years ago, and "The catfish order the second or third most diverse vertebrate order; in fact, 1 out of every 20 vertebrate species is a catfish."
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catfish#cite_note-tol-1
Considering the venoms are short proteins that fill glands or spines (which could pre-exist), what is the objection here?
I suppose an ID expert could do a calculation on this, but It seems Hunter is substituting his religious belief that evolution could never do anything ever over a nice scientific analysis.
The molecular analysis also makes some really nice phylogenetic trees. Funny thing, those.
Dimullen, "Natural selection, on the other hand, DOES respond to the environment"
ReplyDeleteA great example of the pathetic fallacy, whereby natural phenomena which cannot feel as humans do are described as if they could: thus rain‐clouds may ‘weep’, or flowers may be ‘joyful’.
"Natural selection" is not a thing or a person and has no agency. It is an abstract concept. Natural selection cannot, and does not, "respond" to anything, let alone the environment.
In addition, one should note that "environmental pressure" is a fallacious concept; it does not describe anything that exists and uses a false anology (to atmospheric or water pressure) to suggest that it does.
regards,
#John
#John1453: "Natural selection" is not a thing or a person and has no agency. It is an abstract concept. Natural selection cannot, and does not, "respond" to anything, let alone the environment.
ReplyDeleteIt's a figure of speech. A planet has no agency, but someone might ask how it responds in a gravitational field.
What we can say is that there is a correlation between heritable traits and differential reproduction, and that this results in changes in the heritable composition of populations.
#John1453: In addition, one should note that "environmental pressure" is a fallacious concept; it does not describe anything that exists and uses a false anology (to atmospheric or water pressure) to suggest that it does.
It's a figure of speech. One might feel pressure at work.
If we observe a consistent selection, a population may respond in a way much like a gas responds to a pressurizing force. For instance, if there is a drought and available seeds become harder, this can result in changes to the beak morphology of finches.
DjMullen stated: music1028, excuse me, I misread your post. The ORIGINAL information in the DNA goes back a few billion years to whenever DNA started taking over the job of storing genetic information. Science doesn't know much about when or how this happened due to the lack of fossils. What does ID say? [sound of crickets chirping]
ReplyDeleteYes, I know what the neo-darwinian MYTH alleges, now where's the evidence for it??? Once upon a time DNA formed by purely, blind, random materialistic processes from non-living matter that the best educated minds of today can't duplicate, and then allegedly improved by means of genetic mistakes. Laughable! Remove your neo-darwinian ASSUMPTIONS and try to show how darwin's MYTH is nothing but a fairytale for atheists.
BTW, if you read the Bible, you would know that the 'wages of sin is death'...therefore, when sin entered the world through mankind, so did death. THAT'S why we have 10,000 mutation- causing illnesses, yet the appearance of mutations that build up the genome seem to be lacking, at best. Thank GOD for DNA repair, or we wouldn't survive! How do evolutionists explain DNA repair? A system that allegedly evolved to impede further evolution. Crickets chirping is right, mon ami.
"BTW, if you read the Bible, you would know that the 'wages of sin is death"
ReplyDelete"The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it's just sort of a tired feeling." -Paula Poundstone
music1028, I have read the Bible, several times from cover to cover and lots of other reading in it as well. Not to mention various apologetic books and essays. In fact, I generally know more about the Bible than most Christians.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, one of the first times I realized that maybe all this religion was BS was when I was about 15 and studying for my confirmation. I read some passage in the Bible and suddenly realized that if I or anybody else had done something like God had just allegedly done, I'd be jailed for life or worse and deservedly so.
It's been 45 years and I no longer remember the exact passage, but something like Exodus 9:12, Exodus 10:1,20,27, Exodus 11:10, Exodus 14:8 and Exodus 12:29 would be examples of what I'm talking about. An entirely unnecessary and uncalled for mass murder of innocent children.
And why did God supposedly commit these massacres? The answer is in Exodus 11:9 "The LORD had said to Moses, "Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt." To show off! Some God you have there. Sounds more like Hitler to me.
Now I see from your answer that you have absolutely no idea of how or when DNA came to exist, aside from some idea that a mass-murdering God put it there.
Science, on the other hand, can tell you approximately when DNA appeared (billions of years before the Bible says God created the earth) and give some good hypotheses of how it appeared.
It's a good bet that the original self-reproducing molecule was a polymer made from small units strung together into a long, stringy molecule because that describes just about every molecule in every living organism we see today, at least the molecules that aren't water.
It's also a good hypothesis that the first self-reproducing polymer was RNA. This is partly because RNA has been found that is self-catalytic, but also because when you look closely at molecules in living organisms today you find that in almost every case, the part of the protein molecule that actually does something has a small piece of RNA embedded in it that does the actual work.
Another factor for thinking RNA was the original reproducer is that it still manufactures all of the proteins. Generally, DNA is copied to produce RNA which is then used to manufacture the proteins.
Finally, DNA is very much like RNA - it's a double helix compared to RNA's single helix and three out of the four base-pairs are the same in both molecules.
Given all this plus the fact that DNA's double helix makes it much more stable than RNA and it's not a great stretch to think that DNA was recruited to store the information in RNA.
Now compare this to the Bible, which says basically, "DNA? Never heard of it. God created all life exactly as we see it today about six thousand years ago - well after humans invented agriculture, but some time before the Egyptians built the pyramids." I'll take science, thank you.
Finally, if you read the Bible with your mind open instead of in false-worship mode, it might occur to you that all that stuff about The Fall and The Wages of Sin is Death is a very human attempt to square a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient God with the rather appallingly screwed up world we see around us.
The wages of Belief are guaranteed death. With science, we have a chance to make our own immorality, maybe even in time for you and me to benefit from it. But I think that if science ever manages immortality, Good God-Fearing Christians should refuse to avail themselves of it. After all, it would be cheating God of His Righteous Judgement.
#John1453: "Natural selection" is not a thing or a person and has no agency. It is an abstract concept. Natural selection cannot, and does not, "respond" to anything, let alone the environment.
ReplyDelete#John, there's nothing the least bit abstract about natural selection. Natural selection is when an organism copies its DNA to an offspring, often with errors in the copy, and the new organism then tries to make a living using the new DNA.
If the organism lives to reproduce and pass the DNA on again, it has been naturally selected. If it fails and doesn't live to produce offspring, the defective DNA pattern dies with it.
And natural selection is exquisitely sensitive to the environment. If you have an elephant in equatorial Africa and it somehow gets DNA that causes Mastodon like hair to grow on it, that elephant is going to die of heat stroke long before it gets old enough to reproduce.
djmullen:
ReplyDelete====================
Interestingly, one of the first times I realized that maybe all this religion was BS was when I was about 15 and studying for my confirmation. I read some passage in the Bible and suddenly realized that if I or anybody else had done something like God had just allegedly done, I'd be jailed for life or worse and deservedly so.
It's been 45 years and I no longer remember the exact passage, but something like Exodus 9:12, Exodus 10:1,20,27, Exodus 11:10, Exodus 14:8 and Exodus 12:29 would be examples of what I'm talking about. An entirely unnecessary and uncalled for mass murder of innocent children.
And why did God supposedly commit these massacres? The answer is in Exodus 11:9 "The LORD had said to Moses, "Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt." To show off! Some God you have there. Sounds more like Hitler to me.
====================
dj, you're of course entitled to your religious feelings, but don't tell us evolution is science.
====================
Science, on the other hand, can tell you approximately when DNA appeared (billions of years before the Bible says God created the earth) and give some good hypotheses of how it appeared.
====================
Yes, like "God didn't do it, so it must have evolved, somehow." You, like all evolutionists have no choice but to be an evolutionist--your religion requires it. And now you have apparently deluded yourself to the incredible extent of thinking evolution gives a good hypothesis for the origin of DNA.
====================
It's a good bet that the original self-reproducing molecule was a polymer made from small units strung together into a long, stringy molecule because that describes just about every molecule in every living organism we see today, at least the molecules that aren't water.
It's also a good hypothesis that the first self-reproducing polymer was RNA. This is partly because RNA has been found that is self-catalytic, but also because when you look closely at molecules in living organisms today you find that in almost every case, the part of the protein molecule that actually does something has a small piece of RNA embedded in it that does the actual work.
====================
This make grasping at straws downright compelling.
====================
Another factor for thinking RNA was the original reproducer is that it still manufactures all of the proteins. Generally, DNA is copied to produce RNA which is then used to manufacture the proteins.
Finally, DNA is very much like RNA - it's a double helix compared to RNA's single helix and three out of the four base-pairs are the same in both molecules.
Given all this plus the fact that DNA's double helix makes it much more stable than RNA and it's not a great stretch to think that DNA was recruited to store the information in RNA.
====================
Of course it's a great stretch. This is not science, it is a joke.
djmullen,
ReplyDeleteIt is only natural selection if the organism survived due to a heritable trait-
Natural selection is the RESULT of three processes- variation, heredity and fecudity- differential reproduction of heretible variation.
If an organism survives because of luck it is not natural selection.
Zachriel: "What we can say is that there is a correlation between heritable traits and differential reproduction, and that this results in changes in the heritable composition of populations"
ReplyDeleteUmm, no. A "correspondence" is not causitive of anything and so it cannot result in changes. Figures of speech might be useful in a popular book, but not when talking about the actual science. I find that Darwinists and other evolutionists frequently use these figures of speech to (consciously or not) as an equivocation that implies more than warranted. Let's stick to accurate language.
djmullen: "It's a good bet that the original self-reproducing molecule was "
So, let me get this straight. You don't have a step by step model that works, you can't reproduce it in a lab, and you can't observe it in the natural world, but you're willing to bet that it's true? Sounds like a faith based belief to me.
regards,
#John
djmullen: "Natural selection is when an organism copies its DNA to an offspring, often with errors in the copy, and the new organism then tries to make a living using the new DNA. If the organism lives to reproduce and pass the DNA on again, it has been naturally selected."
ReplyDeleteWrong. Nature is not an entity, and does no selection. "Selection" is an agentive concept. If one drops a marble down one of those game boards and it drops through one of several holes in the board, is it accurate to say that the board (or the marble) selected the hole that it dropped into? No, unless one is speaking very loosely, and too loose for good science.
It is more accurate to state that an organism survives and to speak of correlations and patterns (i.e., use statistics and math). In a purely physical world, nature (i.e., the entire material world) just "is" and things happen or occur as a result of prior impersonal material causes.
regards,
#John
So many crickets chirping in this thread for sure.
ReplyDeleteInteresting discussion. Fun reading.
Jeff Anderson
inventor/creator of theCRICKETtoy®
for those awkward pauses
(crickets chirping)
www.theCRICKETtoy.com
And why did God supposedly commit these massacres? The answer is in Exodus 11:9 "The LORD had said to Moses, "Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt." To show off! Some God you have there. Sounds more like Hitler to me.
ReplyDeleteIronically Jewish tradition/creationism essentially led to science as we know it, yet now you seek to set it against Jewish tradition in general. Another irony is that although the Old Testament is apparently just like Nazism and so on the Nazis lost the war partly because they hated the "Jewish influence" and therefore hated Jewish scientists. Not to mention the fact that they sought to eliminate the Old Testament thanks to mythologies of evolutionary progress.
Beliefs about how evil Jewish history is are common among Darwinists, i.e. ignorant mental incompetents, yet their own mythologies of progress say nothing about good and evil. Indeed, one could use the mythology of Darwinism to explain all this supposed evil in a purely "scientific" way. Using the term science loosely just as many Darwinists do, so loosely that it's meaningless.
Consider:
…consider the following representative statements made by leading sociobiologists. Richard Dawkins, easily the best-known spokesman for this movement, writes that 'we are…robot-vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes,' and again that we are 'manipulated in order to assure the survival of our genes.' The same writer also says that 'the fundamental truth [is] that an organism is a tool of DNA.' (That is, of the DNA molecules which are the organism's genes.) Again, Dawkins says that 'living organisms exist for the benefit of DNA.' Similarly, E.O. Wilson, an equal or higher sociobiological authority, says that 'the individual organism is only the vehicle [of genes], part of an elaborate device to preserve and spread them….The organism is only DNA's way of making more DNA.'
I will mention in a moment some other passages in which sociobiologists imply that genes are beings of more than human intelligence and power, but that implication should be clear enough already from the passages just quoted. According to the Christian religion, human beings and all other created things exist for the greater glory of God; according to sociobiology, human beings and all other living things exist for the benefit of their genes.
(Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution by David Stove: 248)
Now consider that these imaginary genes and memes could be traceable through human history, apparently metaphorically "manipulating" things and giving rise to the same patterns of thought repeatedly, e.g.:
"If we do not succeed in destroying the biological substance of the Jews, the Jews will some day destroy the German people."
(The Nazi Doctors; Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide
by Robert Lifton :157)
Note that that's just what these metaphorical beings of more than human power and intelligence would want, the elimination of their competition. It's little different than traditional metaphors: "Jews are the eternal enemies of [me, Satan] and [so] must be exterminated." If given one narrative you can be possessed by demons, in another manipulated by memes.
djmullen: ..."I'm sure you have a citation from an evolutionary source of that quote, right? Or else you'll do the right thing and retract it and apologize, right?"
ReplyDeleteOnly a Darwinian fundamentalist ill-thinker whose hung around TalkO too long could possibly say something this stupid.
You Darweeners are incredibly inadept with quotes (not at all sure Ilion was quoting anyone) -being severely paranoid as well as suffering from acute cognitive dissonance, you see quote mining everywhere - except in your own misquotes and ubiquitous strawman clusters.
Laughable.
Zachriel: What we can say is that there is a correlation between heritable traits and differential reproduction, and that this results in changes in the heritable composition of populations.
ReplyDelete#John1453: Umm, no. A "correspondence" is not causitive of anything and so it cannot result in changes.
The word was "correlation" and "result." We can easily demonstrate causation in many cases by repeatedly manipulating the environment, or in nature, through careful observation over sufficient periods of time.
#John1453: Figures of speech might be useful in a popular book, but not when talking about the actual science.
Words are coopted for new purposes in science all the time. There is no ambiguity when asking how a mass responds to the gravity of a passing object. We agree that clarity is important, but that doesn't justify "Umm, no."
Hitch, etc., "You Darweeners"
ReplyDeleteCould we please disagree without being inflammatory and sneering? Such adjectives do nothing to strengthen or create an argument.
regards,
#John
Z: "We can easily demonstrate causation in many cases by repeatedly manipulating the environment, or in nature, through careful observation over sufficient periods of time."
ReplyDeleteOf course, but that is cause and effect. Causes result in effects, and effects result from causes. Neither correlations or correspondences (synonymous in the context here) are causes, though they may reveal cause - effect relationships. Furthermore, not all correlations are indicative of a cause - effect relationship.
Hence, your original point is still incorrect, and incorrectly reasoned.
regards,
#John
#John1453: Hence, your original point is still incorrect, and incorrectly reasoned.
ReplyDeleteHuh? Which point? We can show that heritable traits cause differential reproductive success, and that this results in changes in the heritable composition of populations. We call the correlation between traits and success "natural selection," and the change in populations "evolution."
What I'm pointing out is that no selection occurs. There is survival of some organisms and death of others in the face of the same environment, but that is not "selection". Yeah, I know that I'll find that term so used in lots of books, but that does not make it true, nor accurate. The use of "selection" sneaks into the theory of evolution telelogical and goal directed concepts and connotations that have no right to be there.
ReplyDeleteIt makes about as much sense to say "natural selection" as it does to say that there is aquatic selection because water selects rocks to sink and wood to float.
A correlation between traits and number of offspring is not a selection.
As for your other figures of speech, what happens is that evolutionists reify them and then use them to suggest that more is going than is actually true. There is no actual pressure, and therefore it is inaccurate (and, I would hope, unscientific) to speak as if it were true. So, for example, evolutionists speak of pressure to imply that there is some force that drives evolution. There is no such force; mutations happen randomly to various organisms in various environments. Some die, some live, some reproduce.
The point, correctly understood, is that "natural selection" does nothing. It is not an agent, a force, an object, etc. It has no powers of selection. It is merely a phrase used to refer to a concept / collection of concepts. djmullen was incorrect to refer to natural selection as doing something.
regards,
#John
#John1453: What I'm pointing out is that no selection occurs. There is survival of some organisms and death of others in the face of the same environment, but that is not "selection".
ReplyDeleteIt may not be the best word. Even Darwin regretted coining the term, but hey, it's just semantics. Whenever you see the term "natural selection" please substitute "correlation between heritable traits and differential reproduction potential in a given environment."
#John1453: As for your other figures of speech, what happens is that evolutionists reify them and then use them to suggest that more is going than is actually true.
Yes, even scientists can be confused by terminology, but that doesn't mean it's a necessary or universal problem. It just requires carefully defining terminology.
#John1453: There is no actual pressure, and therefore it is inaccurate (and, I would hope, unscientific) to speak as if it were true.
And yet we still talk about the "pull" of gravity. When you see "selective pressure" please substitute "persistent differential reproduction potential due to heritable traits in a given environment."
Gravity is actually sensed as a pull, and since its working is not fully understood, it is not inaccurate or misleading; the terms "selection" and "pressure" as used in evolutionary biology are both.
ReplyDeletedjmullen used the term "selection" not in the sense you suggest, but with the sense that there is some actual selection happening--such an error is frequently made in the writings of evolutionists. I'm pointing out that there is no selection happening.
Other than that, we'll have to agree to disagree. Shall it be more posting on the catfish, or shall we move on?
regards,
#John
DJMullen stated: And why did God supposedly commit these massacres? The answer is in Exodus 11:9 "The LORD had said to Moses, "Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt." To show off! Some God you have there. Sounds more like Hitler to me.
ReplyDeleteSo you think Hitler was evil? Wonderful. But wait, wasn't Hitler just mere matter?...he couldn't help the way blind, random evolution made him, right? Wasn't ol' Adolph just fulfilling the old 'survial of the fittest' ideology??? As atheist William Provine states, 'blame is useless' because we have no free will and no ultimate ethical authority...so where do you, mere alleged evolved matter, get the authority to condemn ol' Adolph when you're no better than he is in a materialistic universe??? The answer is GOD, my friend.
John1453: "Hitch, etc., "You Darweeners"
ReplyDeleteCould we please disagree without being inflammatory and sneering? Such adjectives do nothing to strengthen or create an argument."
Yet, it remains logically impossible to engage in rational discussion with most DarwinDefenders -- for most are intellectually dishonest. In fact, in some of your own attempted interactions with them, following your attempted correction/parenting of Hitch, etc, you are yourself pointing out the fact that your interlocutors are intellectually dishonest ... you're just not explicitly using the words.