Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

Ansiktsburk wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 6:37 am Puberty blockers - whatever rocks you boat, and does not hurt other people, except their feelings of what is Proper.
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:38 amWho is this post for? Are you addressing this to children behind their parents backs?
Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 10:22 amSuppose so. As well as to Parents, trying to mold kids into something that isnt in their "DNA". Being a parent myself I see too much of parents seeing their children as children and not evolving individual homo sapiens with individual traits and DNA to aknowledge.
I followed Dr Marcus Evans, formerly of GIDS on twitter. He quit, as did 30+ other therapists because of the politically correct pressure to proscribe puberty blockers for what he describes - particularly in adolescents, as often a phase that passes with time. Puberty blockers, I'm led to understand, have permanent effects. What I wanted to understand is the High Court decision in this matter; whether it is to insulate the NHS from the damage already done by politically correct affirmation of an often temporary psychological disorder - or whether the court had bowed to politically correct pressure. I'm no closer to understanding that. But at least I know what you, as a parent - think!
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:49 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:18 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:13 am I aim this post at Immanuel Can who does not believe in evolution by natural selection see his 'arguments' with Vitruvius.

]Natural selection results in speciation.[/b] Darwin's observations of wild finches and also his own artifically selected pigeons are quite long ago. However we have modern and ongoing lab experiments. Speciation is defined as reproductive isolation.

Experimental results: The first steps of speciation have been produced in several laboratory experiments involving "geographic" isolation. For example, Diane Dodd examined the effects of geographic isolation and selection on fruit flies. She took fruit flies from a single population and divided them into separate populations living in different cages to simulate geographic isolation. Half of the populations lived on maltose-based food, and the other populations lived on starch-based foods. After many generations, the flies were tested to see which flies they preferred to mate with. Dodd found that some reproductive isolation had occurred as a result of the geographic isolation and selection for different food sources in the two environments: "maltose flies" preferred other "maltose flies," and "starch flies" preferred other "starch flies." Although, we can't be sure, these preference differences probably existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior. This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation.
Fruit fly speciation experiment
Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment suggests that isolating populations in different environments (e.g., with different food sources) can lead to the beginning of reproductive isolation. These results are consistent with the idea that geographic isolation is an important step of some speciation events.
Evolution is the only supposed, "science," for which there is not one single observed example of the thing it is supposed to be the study of: one specie becoming a different specie.

It is interesting that you mention fruit flies. The correct name is, drosophila melanogaster, and they have been at the forefront of genetic research since 1910.

From Problems of the Evolutionary Hypothesis:
The most extensively studied eukaryote is the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. With only 4 chromosomes and a reproductive cycle of 7 days, they have made an excellent tool for investigation. Used since 1910, when T. H. Morgan first started modern genetics with them, we have been able to study 4,940 generations.

Drosophila, over this time, have been exposed to just about every sort of mutant generator. Mutations have been found for almost all characteristics, the wings, color, eyes, thorax components, and many more. Certain genes that convey rapid mutations have been isolated. Drosophila come in every wing shape (including wingless), color and twisted up contorted variety. But in all this time, they have never shown any indication of being anything other than D. melanogaster.
In other words, there has never ever been observed a single case of one specie becoming a different specie even in those organisms in which it was most likely possible. Mutation is not speciation.

If one must assume an origin for species and must have an explanation for them, evolution is a plausible hypothesis, but that is all it is. It is certainly better than creationism or the absurd idea of intelligent design, but it is not science.

One main problem with calling evolution science is that assuming it prevents any real research into the true nature of the variation of the species, as pointed out in the quoted article:
It is stated by scientists today, that either humans "evolved" from previous, different animals by random mutations in DNA, or we were made by a God. It is never considered that both may be wrong, and there could be other explanations for speciation, a different explanation for the "fossil record." This is due as much to the blind—virtually religious—fervor of evolutionists as to the same religious dogmatism of the creationists. If one does not accept that something is possible, one does not, after all, go looking for it.
Those who embrace evolution do so with the same kind of blind faith in the high-priests of evolution as the religious do their own religious authorities. Both are superstitions and both are dangerous as premises for attempting to understand human nature.
You really don't know much about anything, do you?
No I don't. It's why I never stop learning. I'll never be satisfied that I know enough.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 6:12 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 5:49 pm I guess IC would not agree with me that people can learn different ideas which they find to be more reasonable and then adopt these more reasonable ideas as their chosen faiths.
Actually, I'd not only agree, but would say it's the ONLY legitimate or sensible reason to believe a thing. A person should always go with the best information he/she has, and believe what he/she has best reason to believe is true.

Why else would anybody believe something? After all, if you know you're fooling yourself, then you don't really believe what you say at all, do you?
I note and understand what you say. Your posts show you rely on The Bible as history in the modern sense of history, and this concords with your your support for reason. Therefore where you make the mistake is not in your support for reason, which you do, it's in your support for inferior reasoning.

How to know what is inferior reasoning? The best method is when the subjects of an experiment don't have a clue what is going on, and such are fruit flies. These can be shown to be well on their way to changing from one species into two or more separate species.

Modern man and Neanderthal man did reproduce together. Some laboratory grown fruit flies can't reproduce together. These are two examples of what speciation means. Mankind is no more a fixed species than fruit flies except that fruit flies do it faster.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:50 am ...where you make the mistake is not in your support for reason, which you do, it's in your support for inferior reasoning.
Maybe you should explain. In what way, or on what evidence, do you suppose someone's reason to be "inferior," as you put it?
The best method is when the subjects of an experiment don't have a clue what is going on, and such are fruit flies. These can be shown to be well on their way to changing from one species into two or more separate species.
Well, so far as I have ever found, no case of a fruit fly changing into a new species has ever been produced, despite all the efforts in the lab. Perhaps you're confusing intra-species specialization for actually transitioning species...that's the usual error people make, when they make such claims.

But I'll look at your data, if you'll point me to it. Since your reason is superior, you should have good data, no?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:32 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:49 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:18 am
Evolution is the only supposed, "science," for which there is not one single observed example of the thing it is supposed to be the study of: one specie becoming a different specie.

It is interesting that you mention fruit flies. The correct name is, drosophila melanogaster, and they have been at the forefront of genetic research since 1910.

From Problems of the Evolutionary Hypothesis:



In other words, there has never ever been observed a single case of one specie becoming a different specie even in those organisms in which it was most likely possible. Mutation is not speciation.

If one must assume an origin for species and must have an explanation for them, evolution is a plausible hypothesis, but that is all it is. It is certainly better than creationism or the absurd idea of intelligent design, but it is not science.

One main problem with calling evolution science is that assuming it prevents any real research into the true nature of the variation of the species, as pointed out in the quoted article:

Those who embrace evolution do so with the same kind of blind faith in the high-priests of evolution as the religious do their own religious authorities. Both are superstitions and both are dangerous as premises for attempting to understand human nature.
You really don't know much about anything, do you?
No I don't. It's why I never stop learning. I'll never be satisfied that I know enough.
If you were interested in learning then you wouldn't have made such bloody stupid and astonishingly ignorant comments about the FACT of evolution.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 2:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:50 am ...where you make the mistake is not in your support for reason, which you do, it's in your support for inferior reasoning.
Maybe you should explain. In what way, or on what evidence, do you suppose someone's reason to be "inferior," as you put it?
The best method is when the subjects of an experiment don't have a clue what is going on, and such are fruit flies. These can be shown to be well on their way to changing from one species into two or more separate species.
Well, so far as I have ever found, no case of a fruit fly changing into a new species has ever been produced, despite all the efforts in the lab. Perhaps you're confusing intra-species specialization for actually transitioning species...that's the usual error people make, when they make such claims.

But I'll look at your data, if you'll point me to it. Since your reason is superior, you should have good data, no?
Reproductive isolation is the start of speciation.Adam and Eve could not have been fruitful and multiplied if they were reproductively isolated from each other, like certain fruit flies:
Diane Dodd s fruit fly experiment suggests that isolating populations in different environments (e.g., with different food sources) can lead to the beginning of reproductive isolation. These results are consistent with the idea that geographic isolation is an important step of some speciation events.

Your reasoning is faulty because you persist in regarding certain of the authors and editors of The Bible as historiographers. Modern historiography is qualitatively better than ancient historiography, medieval historiography, and even early twentieth century historiography.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 7:14 pm Adam and Eve could not have been fruitful and multiplied if they were reproductively isolated from each other, like certain fruit flies:
Well, on the one hand, no sexually-reproducing things that are "isolated from each other" can reproduce, so that's just a bizarrely obvious claim, and one of no relevance I can see. :shock:

Secondly, to presume "fruit flies" are some sort of analogy with human development is merely to assume your wanted conclusion, and beg the whole question. I really can't grant your point if all you've done is presume that you're right, and that humans reproduce like fruit flies...you have to show that you are right. Otherwise, I would be irrational to take your conclusions.
Your reasoning is faulty because you persist in regarding certain of the authors and editors of The Bible as historiographers.
My claim is far more modest. All I'm saying is that they told the truth.

But, of course, I could point out that your assumption that they are not reliable is totally gratuitious as well. So I don't see any way in which your reasoning about that is even as good as mine, let alone "superior." Even were I reasoning defiiciently , as you assume, at least I have some data to work with. I don't see that you have any.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:28 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:32 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:49 am

You really don't know much about anything, do you?
No I don't. It's why I never stop learning. I'll never be satisfied that I know enough.
If you were interested in learning then you wouldn't have made such bloody stupid and astonishingly ignorant comments about the FACT of evolution.
I don't care if you think so or not, but I really have tried to understand evolution, but those who assure me, like you, get all huffy whenever I ask any questions about it, in just the same Theists do when I ask question about their beliefs. That convinces me, they are not as certain as they claim.

Whenever I ask if they can provide one example that can actually be observed of one specie becoming a different specie by means of mutation, they either accuse me of being unreasonable or provide such examples as two different varieties of the same specie. I never claim evolution is wrong and I certainly don't care if others want to believe in it, anymore than I care if others want to believe in creation.

Evolution is certainly more plausible than creation, but a science is not based on some plausible evidence, science is based on evidence that can be reproduced and actually observed experimentally. I'll grant evolution is a science when it is able to demonstrate exactly how even one specie becomes another, and can repeatedly make it happen, or actually produces a living organism from non-living material. Until then, however much it might answer some questions, I'll not close my eyes pretending evolution is the final answer and will remain open to other non-mystical, scientific, explanations for life and species.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:31 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:28 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:32 am
No I don't. It's why I never stop learning. I'll never be satisfied that I know enough.
If you were interested in learning then you wouldn't have made such bloody stupid and astonishingly ignorant comments about the FACT of evolution.
I don't care if you think so or not, but I really have tried to understand evolution, but those who assure me, like you, get all huffy whenever I ask any questions about it, in just the same Theists do when I ask question about their beliefs. That convinces me, they are not as certain as they claim.

Whenever I ask if they can provide one example that can actually be observed of one specie becoming a different specie by means of mutation, they either accuse me of being unreasonable or provide such examples as two different varieties of the same specie. I never claim evolution is wrong and I certainly don't care if others want to believe in it, anymore than I care if others want to believe in creation.

Evolution is certainly more plausible than creation, but a science is not based on some plausible evidence, science is based on evidence that can be reproduced and actually observed experimentally. I'll grant evolution is a science when it is able to demonstrate exactly how even one specie becomes another, and can repeatedly make it happen, or actually produces a living organism from non-living material. Until then, however much it might answer some questions, I'll not close my eyes pretending evolution is the final answer and will remain open to other non-mystical, scientific, explanations for life and species.
That's just ridiulous. It's not my job to explain it to you. Find a child's book on it then if it's too hard for you to understand. Or 'evolution for dummies'. It's probably about the simplest scientific field to understand because it's so elegant and fundamentally simple and obvious. Once Darwin discovered how it worked it was like a bulb being switched on for the entire human race.

As for one 'species' suddenly turning into 'another species' what the fuck do you expect? We are talking about infinitesimal changes over a VERY long time. How are you defining 'species'? Over an infinitely shorter time scale does Babbage's counting machine resemble today's 'smart phone'? Are they 'two different species'?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 10:18 pm ... It's not my job to explain it to you. ... We are talking about infinitesimal changes over a VERY long time.
No one asked you to, especially since you have no idea how even evolutionary biologists explain evolution. No evolutionary biologist today even suggest evolution proceeds by, "infinitesimal changes over a VERY long time," which any geneticist can explain is impossible. The only explanation for evolution is mutation and no mutation can produce an, "infinitesimal," or even very small change.

There are four ways for genetic variations to occur:

1. Point mutation. This is the result of damage to the DNA from external sources such as radiation or cellular aging. The DNA changes one of its base pairs, thus changing the code from one amino acid to another. Almost always this is deleterious.

2. Recombination. This occurs when DNA from one part of the genome breaks away and rejoins at another part of the genome. It is more regularly and frequently an event in all genomes, prokaryote and eukaryote, as small sections of DNA are exchanged between chromosomes during the phases of cell division, usually being either neutral in effect or deleterious as in Philadelphia 21, which leads to Chronic Myloid Leukemia.

3. Transposition. Small fragments of DNA known as transposons are able to "lift" fragments of DNA and transport them, in the case of bacteria, into a different cell via plasmids and viruses, or in the few eukaryotes found to have them, such as Drosophila, around the cell genome.

4. Re-assortment. Possession by eukaryotic cells of two pairs of genetic information which separate randomly in cell division and then pair with the opposite from the second parent during fertilization.

For all sexually reproducing eukaryotes, re-assortment is the most significant kind of mutation for the evolutionary theory, because evolution assumes any features acquired (or lost) by mutation must be passed on to offspring. That means only changes in the germ line DNA, i.e. sperm and ova, have any significance in the evolution of any more complex (sexual) organisms. Changes to somatic cells are irrelevant to the theory.

There are no gradual tiny changes possible by mutation. Almost all known mutations are deleterious and all are profound. They have to be profound or they won't work at all.

There is no way a single small change can result in a viable new feature. All aspects of any new feature must be in place and functioning or it cannot work at all. Consider DNA transcription to produce a protein in a cell. The correct DNA sequence must be in place. The mRNA must have been produced correctly by its DNA, and be in place; the tRNA, a different one for each amino acid, must have been correctly transcribed and formed; and the ribosomes of both units must have been correctly transcribed and their tertiary structure formed; and the enzymes involved must all be present and active. The ATP pump must be working to provide the energy required. The correct solution of salts and trace elements must be present and at exactly the correct pH. The cellular pool must have all components for each amino acid present. If any of those features are not exactly as required, the cell dies. There is no way all those aspects of a cell could have, "evolved," gradually, because they all had to be exactly what they are, or the cell would not be viable.

That's a little of what I know about genetics and evolution, but I'm always willing to learn more. At present, there is no explanation of the origins of things or even a good reason to seek one. Only what actually is here matters and can be studied without guessing how it got here. How it got here is irrelevent, it will be the same however it got here. What is certain is that none of today's popular hypotheses for origins is right, whether creation, intelligent design, or evolution.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 2:21 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 10:18 pm ... It's not my job to explain it to you. ... We are talking about infinitesimal changes over a VERY long time.
No one asked you to, especially since you have no idea how even evolutionary biologists explain evolution. No evolutionary biologist today even suggest evolution proceeds by, "infinitesimal changes over a VERY long time," which any geneticist can explain is impossible. The only explanation for evolution is mutation and no mutation can produce an, "infinitesimal," or even very small change.

There are four ways for genetic variations to occur:

1. Point mutation. This is the result of damage to the DNA from external sources such as radiation or cellular aging. The DNA changes one of its base pairs, thus changing the code from one amino acid to another. Almost always this is deleterious.

2. Recombination. This occurs when DNA from one part of the genome breaks away and rejoins at another part of the genome. It is more regularly and frequently an event in all genomes, prokaryote and eukaryote, as small sections of DNA are exchanged between chromosomes during the phases of cell division, usually being either neutral in effect or deleterious as in Philadelphia 21, which leads to Chronic Myloid Leukemia.

3. Transposition. Small fragments of DNA known as transposons are able to "lift" fragments of DNA and transport them, in the case of bacteria, into a different cell via plasmids and viruses, or in the few eukaryotes found to have them, such as Drosophila, around the cell genome.

4. Re-assortment. Possession by eukaryotic cells of two pairs of genetic information which separate randomly in cell division and then pair with the opposite from the second parent during fertilization.

For all sexually reproducing eukaryotes, re-assortment is the most significant kind of mutation for the evolutionary theory, because evolution assumes any features acquired (or lost) by mutation must be passed on to offspring. That means only changes in the germ line DNA, i.e. sperm and ova, have any significance in the evolution of any more complex (sexual) organisms. Changes to somatic cells are irrelevant to the theory.

There are no gradual tiny changes possible by mutation. Almost all known mutations are deleterious and all are profound. They have to be profound or they won't work at all.

There is no way a single small change can result in a viable new feature. All aspects of any new feature must be in place and functioning or it cannot work at all. Consider DNA transcription to produce a protein in a cell. The correct DNA sequence must be in place. The mRNA must have been produced correctly by its DNA, and be in place; the tRNA, a different one for each amino acid, must have been correctly transcribed and formed; and the ribosomes of both units must have been correctly transcribed and their tertiary structure formed; and the enzymes involved must all be present and active. The ATP pump must be working to provide the energy required. The correct solution of salts and trace elements must be present and at exactly the correct pH. The cellular pool must have all components for each amino acid present. If any of those features are not exactly as required, the cell dies. There is no way all those aspects of a cell could have, "evolved," gradually, because they all had to be exactly what they are, or the cell would not be viable.

That's a little of what I know about genetics and evolution, but I'm always willing to learn more. At present, there is no explanation of the origins of things or even a good reason to seek one. Only what actually is here matters and can be studied without guessing how it got here. How it got here is irrelevent, it will be the same however it got here. What is certain is that none of today's popular hypotheses for origins is right, whether creation, intelligent design, or evolution.
Ok. Hypothetical scenario. Fish lays eggs. One of those eggs has a genetic mutation that enables it to breathe in water and on land. Massive drought occurs. All offspring perish except for the one with the genetic mutation that allows it to breathe on land. Said offspring then survives to pass on said mutation.........

As for one 'species' turning into another....Any observer that was only able to view us as DNA would think that every living thing on earth is 'the same species' with minor variations. Do you really expect to actually see a horse giving birth to monkey??
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote:
What is certain is that none of today's popular hypotheses for origins is right, whether creation, intelligent design, or evolution.
Evolution's meaning is gradual change over time. You probably mean evolution by natural selection not evolution by artificial selection as in the breeding of farm animals, fruit flies, or popular sorts of pet dog.

Few of us are medievals, and scientific reasoning by inductive-deductive methods reigns , so evolution by natural selection is more credible for moderns than the alternatives. Nobody with common sense let alone scientific training will believe any theory is absolutely true, but that there is always that inductive gap,
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 4:18 am Ok. Hypothetical scenario. Fish lays eggs. One of those eggs has a genetic mutation that enables it to breathe in water and on land. Massive drought occurs. All offspring perish except for the one with the genetic mutation that allows it to breathe on land. Said offspring then survives to pass on said mutation.........
First if all, I'm not interested in refuting the evolutionary hypothesis. It isn't like I want it to be untrue and I'd be delighted if it could be fixed and corrected. It's just, as it is, it is simply assumed and all the discussion only aims at promoting it, not making it right.

It would be impossible for a genetic mutation in a single fish egg, even if the resulting organism lived, to pass on its genetic nature to offspring. Fish reproduce sexually. There would have to be at least two organisms with the same mutation, (one male and one female) for it to reproduce. I see no reason why that case would be impossible. (I do not subscribe to the stupid, "statistical unlikelyhood," objection of evolution.) It's just that it would take more than one mutation of an organism for a new specie (or even a significant change in a specie, like becoming air-breathing) to occur. Now that can certainly be proposed, but, so far, there is just no evidence of such an event or even an explanation of how it could happen, so it would just be a plausible guess--not science.

And that is my only objection to evolution. Calling it a science and then using it as the explanation of human nature and psychology, as though evolution determined human behavior (the same way Christians use their religion to explain human behavior) is just wrong.
Last edited by RCSaunders on Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:30 pm RCSaunders wrote:
What is certain is that none of today's popular hypotheses for origins is right, whether creation, intelligent design, or evolution.
Evolution's meaning is gradual change over time. You probably mean evolution by natural selection not evolution by artificial selection as in the breeding of farm animals, fruit flies, or popular sorts of pet dog.

Few of us are medievals, and scientific reasoning by inductive-deductive methods reigns , so evolution by natural selection is more credible for moderns than the alternatives. Nobody with common sense let alone scientific training will believe any theory is absolutely true, but that there is always that inductive gap,
Of the 118 chemical elements described in the periodic chart of the elements, there is no doubt at all that the valences and number of electrons, protons, and neutrons of the 94 naturally occuring elements (and their isotopes) is known and absolutely true. In fact, it is not possible that the chemical description of those elements could not be true.

[I have never seen the evolutionary hypothesis in any biological or genetics book or paper described as, "gradual change over time." Today, no evolutionist means that for certain, since all genetic change requires mutation, which is never, "gradual."]
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 3:56 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:30 pm RCSaunders wrote:
What is certain is that none of today's popular hypotheses for origins is right, whether creation, intelligent design, or evolution.
Evolution's meaning is gradual change over time. You probably mean evolution by natural selection not evolution by artificial selection as in the breeding of farm animals, fruit flies, or popular sorts of pet dog.

Few of us are medievals, and scientific reasoning by inductive-deductive methods reigns , so evolution by natural selection is more credible for moderns than the alternatives. Nobody with common sense let alone scientific training will believe any theory is absolutely true, but that there is always that inductive gap,
Of the 118 chemical elements described in the periodic chart of the elements, there is no doubt at all that the valences and number of electrons, protons, and neutrons of the 94 naturally occuring elements (and their isotopes) is known and absolutely true. In fact, it is not possible that the chemical description of those elements could not be true.

[I have never seen the evolutionary hypothesis in any biological or genetics book or paper described as, "gradual change over time." Today, no evolutionist means that for certain, since all genetic change requires mutation, which is never, "gradual."]
Artificial selection causes evolution of the offspring of successive generations that are artificially selected. Comparative rates of evolution vary. All else being equal geographical isolation speeds up evolution by natural selection, as does rate of reproduction.

Mutations are not gradual, however random mutations plus struggle for existence tend to cause a species to evolve. Some parents have babies faster than other parents have babies.
Post Reply