Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:26 pm
I don't think that's what Darwin originally had in mind.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
I don't think that's what Darwin originally had in mind.
Belgium was even worse.uwot wrote: It used to be the national sport of Holland. I think it's using English swear words these days.
You can witness mutations and call them evolution under the broad latitude that all change is evolution. You can infer that the needs of the organism prompted the mutation to evolve, or you can infer that the mutation is random and any mutations not yet eaten and available to witness, have evolved. However, genetic degeneration disproves that all change is evolution. Or progress, for that matter.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:59 amEvolution observedWalker wrote:Evolution is not a scientific law because evolution has merely been inferred and not observed. ...
Uh huh. Sounds more like, you win some, and then you lose some.davidm wrote:Actually that agrees with me and not you.
The only god being tacked on around here is the Science God.uwot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:26 pmEr? Them in glass houses...Yes they are, but in the case of evolution, the evidence that creatures, including human beings have evolved is so overwhelming, that to deny it happened takes some chutzpah. If you want to tack your god onto it, that is entirely your business, but that is an inference for which there is no evidence.
Well, that's two gods you've invented. Are you starting a pantheon? You really don't understand science at all. It is, in essence the study of the natural world, the aim of which is to discover predictable patterns, that we can quantify, thereby giving us the means to manipulate our environment to whatever ends suit our purpose. Whether you attribute those patterns to 'design' is, as I said, entirely your business. But the one thing I suspect everyone would agree on, is that we cannot control any god by scientific or technological means. For that reason, there is no point including god in science, because if he, she or it is going to do mad crazy shit, there's fuck all we can do about it.
Indeed. As I explained, it is the theory of evolution by natural selection. It was stated in those terms, because, at the time, the prevailing hypothesis was that god did it. For all I know, he did, but if that's so, and you wish to rejoice in his handiwork, then look at it and don't kid yourself it is something which it demonstrably isn't.
Been there, done that.
True. There is an obvious correlation between the number of patates shops and the quality of driving. I don't know if any causal link has ever been established.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:15 amBelgium was even worse.uwot wrote: It used to be the national sport of Holland. I think it's using English swear words these days.
It’s a principle (idea) not restricted to a particular form, and not the person-to-person advice you hear, as slotted in Eleanor’s taxonomy.
Bingo. "...small minds discuss people."
Very well, great mind; what is the idea behind the principle?
Well that pretty much is right. Evolution is a change in gene frequencies over time.Walker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:52 amYou can witness mutations and call them evolution under the broad latitude that all change is evolution.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:59 amEvolution observedWalker wrote:Evolution is not a scientific law because evolution has merely been inferred and not observed. ...
That is Lamarckism and has been disproved. Also, organisms do not evolve; populations do.You can infer that the needs of the organism prompted the mutation to evolve,
Well, mutations do not evolve, populations do; but apart from that the above is pretty much correct.or you can infer that the mutation is random and any mutations not yet eaten and available to witness, have evolved.
Erm?However, genetic degeneration disproves that all change is evolution.
There is no notion of progress in evolution. Evolutionary change is not progress, it's just change.Or progress, for that matter.
It's more than that, though. At the molecular level evolution appears to be dominated not be selection but by the genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral: Neither beneficial nor deleterious.
Hm! Which doubts would those be? I wonder ... could your "doubts of Darwin" have been derived from the title of a certain book?
You are arguing with a person that hasn't got a clue about what he is talking about.davidm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:50 pmWell that pretty much is right. Evolution is a change in gene frequencies over time.
That is Lamarckism and has been disproved. Also, organisms do not evolve; populations do.You can infer that the needs of the organism prompted the mutation to evolve,
Well, mutations do not evolve, populations do; but apart from that the above is pretty much correct.or you can infer that the mutation is random and any mutations not yet eaten and available to witness, have evolved.
Erm?However, genetic degeneration disproves that all change is evolution.
There is no notion of progress in evolution. Evolutionary change is not progress, it's just change.Or progress, for that matter.
I'm a late comer and of course didn't read the entire thread with its 87 posts.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:04 am While I accept the theory of evolution as being explanative in a variety of cases, I still remain skeptical as to it being 100%.
Here's something to consider. From the moment that the human egg gets fertilized, it goes through stages that mimics biohistory, the fish stage and other stages of life up to the time it gets born. When it gets born, it has very little hair which is opposite to our primate ancestors having lots of hair. Then later on, the Homo Sapiens man child gets hairier as it grows into manhood and even more hair as it gets very old, opposite to human ancestors which has been losing hair throughout history (from a male perspective, females having even less hair).
Again I'm not saying that the theory is invalid. But I think there are complications it can't handle.
What do you think about this?
PhilX
In the interests of clarity, are you saying that something as complicated as a cell could not possibly have arisen through any natural processes i.e. in a way explicable through science?
If cells could not have arisen through any natural process, how did they come into being?P.S. - Before you ask (or affirm): No, I'm not a Creationism (whatever this is). Don't even think about that. At any time.
Thanks for your question, even if I'm sorry that you're using my "P.S.", where I tell you I'm not a Creationist.