Philosophy Now Forum

Well, the usual explanation is that some organism that could thrive in the environment did so. Its waste was toxic to its peers; they died and others that could thrive in the new conditions had their moment. It is convenient for the organism that fits the niche, but 'visionary' requires something w...

Exactly. The oxygenation of the atmosphere exerted huge selective pressures in favor of hemoglobin or something like it. This is not a random process but neither is it a teleological one. Your most impressive affirmation is that evolution isn't random without further explanation. When I fill in a E...

it is NEITHER random NOR teleological. This has been EXPLAINED TO YOU -- over and over! Are you really this thick???? I explained this to you IN DETAIL with three key examples -- the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, the evolution of glucose-aversion among cockroaches in the presence of bait trap...

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:47 pm

Artificial selection isn't new in the thread and I told before that you simply concentrate traits, you don't originate any new trait, so there isn't evolution. Please refer to the posts backward.

Maybe this will make you think - but I doubt it. You are not going to win the lottery. If the lottery was just for you then it would be truly astounding were you to win it. However people win the lottery every week. And in a cup of the primordial soup there were more amino acid molecules than stars...

Asimov was talking about a purely random process, you ignorant wack job --as has been repeatedly shown to you. What is wrong with you? Asimov was supporting, not denying, evolution! Are you more stupid than dishonest, or more dishonest than stupid? That is the only relevant question remaining in th...

SUMMARY OF RECENT POSTS: We have quite a small puzzle, just a tiny detail in animals, hemoglobin. No Evolutionaut so far could demonstrate how natural selection arranged for 141 amino-acids to be put in such a correct sequence as to produce a hemoglobin chain (or the same for the DNA counterpart if...

I'm no fool. Charles Darwin is the most important person who ever lived and his book The Origin of Species the source of all cosmic knowledge.

Greta, I'd never ignore you. I even complimented your stylish writings. But Greta, I even disclose my references so that people can check. Don't accuse me of laziness. Fractal dynamics, however speculative (who cares?), is nevertheless quite plausible and allows for teleology. So, I'm interested in...

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:19 am

I'm afraid there are already many threads discussing that. Keep this one clean.

Hemoglobin evolved, you miserable cretin. It did not appear out of nothing. That would be contrary to evolutionary theory. Evolution is NOT teleological and is NOT driven by a force. What is wrong with you? Did you take a bullet to the head when you were a little shit? It's your job demonstrate pla...

1. Greta already asked that and I answered. Please check backwards (as a matter of fact, I believe you need checking many more things backwards). I can tell you in advance that "reverse" logic, as you call it idiosyncratically, is best known as confusion between post hoc and pre hoc odds,...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:28 pm

I asked Arising the probability this week's Powerball match will win next week.

Answer: And the point?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:17 pm

But don't waste your time, Arising.

Everything is clear up. Hobbes already revealed evolution is teleological and there's a "driving force".

The Blind Watchmaker has a ragged blindfold and some kind of supernatural powers.

Hemoglobin is peanuts, I already told Davidm.

What are you talking about? Other people linked clips to refute scientific articles and you asked me to watch them. I asked the probability that this week's Powerball match will win next week. People here forget things again and again, use the same counter-arguments again and again and I have to wr...