Doctor X

Might as well . . . where is my Fallacy Meter? [Tm.--Ed.]

Cadit quaestio . . . the "question fails" methinks. Here, the individual tries to shift the burden of responsibility. He has no evidence for his position so tries to attack the established position as if any problem with it will result in it failing.

Rhetorical devise, yes. Argument, no.

Untrue as I am sure a physicist will note [Argumentum ad ignorantiam.--Ed.] Oh hush! Anyways, natural selection, the process of evolution, does not have to address a "primary cause." It demonstrates how species evolve. It does not have to explain how lie started--though it may very well help to explain how it propagated.

Note No Attempt to Explain How the Creation Myths in the OT Can be Valid in the Face of Contrary Evidence

What follows is a failure to recognize the very strong sequence homology of basic developmental signals for development. What follows is a failure to explain how organisms now evolve in the face of environmental pressures--natural selection. Remember those bacteria?

Very well, did YHWH cut the heavens from the earth?

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

The Evolution/Creation forum is the proper place to discuss natural selection. If this thread doesn't return to the subject of Biblical Criticism & History, it will be closed or moved.

best,
Peter Kirby

Doctor X

Bossman Peter:

Maybe you can "split off" the more recent part dealing with evolution and send it to the Evolution/Creation forum?

If you do feel free to delete this post.

--J.D.

Doctor X

Peter:

Thanks!

--J.D.

RufusAtticus

And I bet you deduced that from decades of working as a biologist both in the field and in the lab on the question of selection. Oh wait. . . .

Actually biology knows where selection comes from. In fact, it was on of the important observations that Darwin made ~140 years ago. Simply put, natural selection is an emergent property that happens in populations of imperfect replecators. Mutation produces variation. Competition within this variation generates selection, and those that can reproduce better than others do.

Yeah so what? It doesn't claim it does. Only creationists think that natural selection must explain every thing in the world. I don't expect music theory to explain how the planets forumed, why do you expect evolutionary theory to explain how the universe formed?

Yeah so what? It doesn't claim that they should. There is a reason why it's descent with modification not side-stepping with modification. When our ancestors became humans, they didn't stop being homonins, apes, primates, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, gnathostomes, vertebrates, chordates, deutrostromes, bilaterates, animals, eukaryotes, or biotes.

Every hear of paleontology, neontology, genetics, biochemistry, etc?

Name one. Heck, if you're willing we can have a formal debate over the existance of separate, immutable kinds.



". . . deliberately and very intrincantly designed badly" you mean. After all what competant, sentient designer puts a sewage line in the middle of a water slide?

Paging Mr. Oolon. Mr. Oolon, you have a telephone call at the front desk.

No rational being as ever claimed that they like da booty.

And yet creationists often can't realize that natural selection = biology. It doesn't give a crap about the universe.

wdog

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Selection provides no explanation for primary cause. It hasn't a clue as to where the process itself came from or where the 'stuff' came from to naturally select from.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Untrue as I am sure a physicist will note [Argumentum ad ignorantiam.--Ed.] Oh hush! Anyways, natural selection, the process of evolution, does not have to address a "primary cause." It demonstrates how species evolve. It does not have to explain how lie started--though it may very well help to explain how it propagated"


aberdeen, primary cause of what? see quantum cosmology if you need a primary cause of 'stuff' and doctor is right, natural selection is a mechanism that helps explain evolution, not abiogenisis or the big bang. This is a display of a real lack of grasp of the subject.

aberdeen, please tell me why it is that your type feels compelled to write about something for which you are unqualified (detailed knowledge and understanding = qualification)?
let me clarify a little better, it is ok to write, but to make such sweeping conclusions about a subject, you need to have a mastery of it which you so clearly lack.

Doubting Didymus

oh dear.

Doctor X

Sorry, but too late for me to edit a post above.

I will just say that I was suspicious to receive a PM--wondering why someone would want to debate privately rather than publically based on a public post. I was somewhat concerned to have my PM box filled with various insults . . . unlike the way it is usually filled with insults.

However, it has been polite.

--J.D.

Oolon Colluphid

<Jumps up and down frantically with arm in the air> “Me! Me! Let me get this one Miss!”

<thinks for a moment about past experiences>

So, uh, aberdeen, do you promise to stay around long enough to discuss these things? Cos I’d very much like to ask you about what you mean by some bits of your first linked article. Specifically, what you mean by design. Others may query the design-of-the-universe stuff; I merely want to know about the creator-designer behind biological complexity.

But to take a simple bit, since you asked for critiques:
Just so you know, no modern species is ancestral to any other modern species. What modern species share is a common ancestor, like you and your cousins. Your cousin is not your ancestor. Thus, chimpanzees are not “our supposed ancestors”. The only people who think that they are supposed to be our ancestors are those who do not understand the subject.

That you have made this one error does not bode well for an analysis of the rest of your writings, for it suggests that you... how can I put this nicely... haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

TTFN, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

Hello, Oolon Colluphid speaking.
Oh, hiya Rufus, what can I do for you?
We've got a... what? He said.... hmmm, did he.
Well, that's why I want to check that he is talking about biological design, because his article says So what exactly was designed then?
Eyes? Shall I tell him about eyes yet?
No, you're right, I'll wait. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
You're welcome, yep, you too. See you soon.