Posted on 12/15/2023 1:35:37 AM PST by spirited irish
I believe my observation for your statement, which was:
“They cite it against people who argue that the alleged weaknesses or incompleteness of Darwinism (because it doesn’t purport to explain EVERYTHING) somehow make Creationism more plausible - and against people who argue that Darwinism can’t be true because... “BIBLE!”
Is quite apt. My observation was it is a surrogate theological argument.
Your statement described this dynamic well.
You disagree with my observation? If so why?
As far as laconic, am I supposed to be angry or frantic?
“I beg your pardon! I didn’t realize that I was conversing with someone who already had a thorough grounding in Darwin’s theory, and was qualified to expound upon”
Not sure why you would assume I have no knowledge of the theory of evolution, I do. Additionally I studied mechanical engineering in college, so even though I never mentioned mechanism that kind of terminology is baked into my thinking.
Besides the basic tenant of Darwin’s theory that call for evolution to be a change of kind, different from adaptation. Finch’s that have different beaks are still finches so that is adaptation not evolution…
My question still holds, whether evolution or adaptation I find it curious that there are so many types of trees and additionally why there are so many sun spieces of trees like oak or maple?
I get trees adapting to different climates, palm tree is well suited for the climates it is found in, and trees in desert climates. Those you will not find in say places like Ohio
But in climates like Ohio you will find many varieties that can exist with several different varieties of the same species as i said, red, white, pin
When considering evolution ( or adaptation often used interchangeably in discussions, though not the same)what is the value of these variations.
Then back to the fruit trees.
My understanding is that evolution begins with the start of life and all life developed from that. Whatever the first form of life became all others through evolution and change of kind. So somehow that single cell(for sake of argument) has become everything that exists today, and when the first mutation created the first tree, that tree became all others.
Again my understanding is that there is an element of survival of the fittest baked into Darwin’s theory (correct me if I am wrong), so what was the survival advantage of fruit trees. As I have observed if I walk through an ohio forest I am highly unlikely to find a pear or apple tree as I am to find an oak, maple or ash
I find that interesting
In post 74 you state:
“there’s no difference between life and non-life physically/materially.”
In post 92 you agree with my questions:
“Who says that physically/materially is all there is? Not me.”
There is a huge difference between life and non-life.
That the difference is not physical or material as you claim, for example it’s atoms or quarks or whatever all the way down, seems irrelevant. It’s like looking at a black car and a black tennis racket and saying “There is no difference in color. Science says they are both black.” So what?
Again, there is a huge difference between life and non-life. So what is that difference?
One answer that is readily apparent is “knowledge.” A watchmaker uses his knowledge to design and build a watch. Knowledge goes into a steam engine. Economists refer to this as embodied technology, in distinction to the disembodied technology found double-entry bookkeeping, etc.
Knowledge is embodied in animals and plants. Under the microscope cells embody knowledge. Decades ago, it was credibly claimed that a cell was more complex than a nuclear-powered submarine - the most complex object made by man. As knowledge of the cell has advanced, the difference in complexity has increased.
The cell is astronomically more complex than the protoplasm that Darwin imagined. There is a huge amount of knowledge embedded in the cell. There is no credible natural explanation for abiogenesis. Evolution from first cells to the variety of life about us is also unlikely.
Your statements are, indeed, quite laconic. Additionally, you employ pronouns in such a way as to make me unsure as to what your are referring to.
I have been completely uncertain, up to now, as to on which side of the fence you were sitting on this issue.
Maybe our conversational styles simply don't mesh.
Regards,
I read Darwin’s: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
I found his “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex” largely unreadable.
My understanding of Darwin and neo-Darwinism is that there are mutations and there is selection.
Mutations, as I remember, are little more than birth defects, or failures to replicate properly for whatever reason. Birth defects seem like an unlikely path forward. Even extreme Darwinian environmentalists don’t seem to favor swimming by nuclear reactors. How else are we going to get X-men (fictional superheroes)?
Natural selection seems plausible enough, but I view it as a conservative mechanism. Three legged dear and myopic eagles are likely to be selected out. Darwin got his idea of natural selection, at least in part, from artificial selection, otherwise known as breeding. We breed cattle, dogs, cats, horses, etc with considerable effect. Artificial selection is more powerful and rapid than natural selection.
However, there are limits to selection. We cannot breed a horse to have wings as you say. The material just isn’t there in the gene pool. Happy accidents, such as might be induced by irradiating testicles and eggs, are unlikely to bring about the necessary changes, no matter how well you breed any surviving offspring.
Mutations are going to happen in any case. That can't be stopped. Our natural environment is simply rife with mutagenic factors (cosmic rays, etc.)
And no biologists worth his or her salt would ever claim that any but a tiny minority of mutations are beneficial.
However, for natural selection / evolution to take place, that doesn't matter.
99.99% of the mutations will assuredly be negative. But if 0.01% are beneficial, the corresponding trait will persist and establish itself.
Is that so hard to understand?
Have no idea what you mean by "no matter how well you breed any surviving offspring." This is about NATURAL selection.
Regards,
Yes. But science can’t measure soul and spirit.
Logic on the other hand can address most things if not anything.
“ I have been completely uncertain, up to now, as to on which side of the fence you were sitting on this issue.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this. What fence?
“99.99% (add more nines) of the mutations will assuredly be negative. But if 0.01% (add more zeros) are beneficial, the corresponding trait will persist and establish itself.
Is that so hard to understand?”
The sun will go nova first. Is that so hard to understand?
“Have no idea what you mean by “no matter how well you breed any surviving offspring.” This is about NATURAL selection.”
Natural selection is slower and less certain than artificial selection. If artificial selection can’t get the job done, then natural selection certainly can’t. I thought that was clear.
Nevertheless, the topic was "Natural Selection."
In any case, Natural Selection is, of course, slower and less certain. But it gets the job done. Just takes hundreds of thousands of years.
Regards,
I’m not sure what you mean by this. What fence?
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I had the impression that some people in this thread were arguing against evolution, and others for.
Regards,
“In any case, Natural Selection is, of course, slower and less certain. But it gets the job done. Just takes hundreds of thousands of years.”
It takes more time than the life of the earth up to this point. The latest defense brewing is that it takes the existence of a multiverse.
Yes, of course, but the way you phrased the question it seems as if one must argue one way or the other.
Not at all! Rather, you are free to be a "fence-sitter."
Are you a "fence-sitter?"
Regards,
In my earlier post I was going to ask what is the fence?
Your response “you are free to be a “fence-sitter” makes that question relevant.
What is the fence you talk about?
See my post #112.
Regards,
He may be a bot.
I mean, I spoke with Stephan Jay Gould when he was still alive!
;)
The preponderance of "Chinese fortune cookie"-like statements and "Magic 8 Ball" pronouncements in his replies does suggest that!
Sad thing is that, truth be told, his comments are nonetheless more cogent than those of many flesh-and-blood FReepers in this thread!
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.