bachfiend:
But sexual selection isn't natural selection.
Right. Natural selection is "more effective replicators more effectively replicate", whereas sexual selection is "more effective replicators more effectively replicate".
One theory is before the "whereas", and one is after it. Different theories.
Peahens selecting peacocks on the basis of the size or perfection of the peacock's tails (and it's not certain what the peahens find so attractive) isn't the same as peacocks dying early because they can't avoid predators or get enough food to survive.
Right. In natural selection, reproductive success is critical. In sexual selection, reproductive success is critical. Completely different theories.
Why do Scandanavians have blue eyes, blond hair and fair skin. If you were an adaptionist, you'd say that in scandanavian winters there isn't much sunshine so having fair skin is a means of increasing vitamin D synthesis in the skin.
Could be.
Jared Diamond's explanation is that the small groups of humans who happened to reach Scandanavia after the end of the last glaciation just happened to be blue eyed, blond and fair skinned.
Could be.
I'm waiting for the science. There is science here, isn't there?
He goes on to note that what humans find sexually attractive in mates is usually limited to what they see in their childhood...
Sure. Humans find that huge bossy people several multiples of their height and weight are incredibly sexually attractive.
"Step on me... pleeese... step on me..."
"I looove it when you tell me to clean my room..."
That explains why some guys like Amazons...
leading to xenophobia, so if anyone with a new mutation causing darker skin wouldn't be able to find a mate.
Xenophobia: "No same-sized people need apply!"
We hate people who aren't much much bigger than we are.
Having blue eyes in snow conditions isn't an adaptation, because the individual would be more prone to snow blindness.
"Olaf, I can't find Jared Diamond's new book. The snow is too bright..."
Open to you now to mount a counterargument ...Sigh...
“Open to you now to mount a counterargument ...”
ReplyDeleteA counterargument to what? Incredulity and ignorance?
What a bore.
Let's talk about the theory of gravity. It says "attractive bodies attract things". Have you decided to jump on that as unscientific too?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (1) above considers credulity to be the proper scientific stance.
ReplyDelete@anon:
ReplyDelete[Let's talk about the theory of gravity. It says "attractive bodies attract things". Have you decided to jump on that as unscientific too?]
There are two theories of gravity. Newton's is that gravitational force is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. Nothing in that reduces in any way to a tautology.
The second theory is Einstein's, which consists of 20 tensor equations. No tautology there, either.
Natural selection can always be reduced to a tautology.
Nothing in that reduces in any way to a tautology.
ReplyDeleteIt reduces to a tautology in exactly the same way you try to reduce natural selection to a tautology. You just discard all the other parts and you come up with "attractive bodies attract things".
I have to wonder though, if it is a tautology (which means it is self-evidently true, and thus intelligent design is excluded), then why did no one notice this before Darwin and Wallace published their papers? And if it is self-evidently true, why do you spend so much time complaining about it?
@anon:
ReplyDelete[if it is a tautology (which means it is self-evidently true, and thus intelligent design is excluded)]
Why does 'survivors survive' exclude ID? Designed survivors survive, too.
[then why did no one notice this before Darwin and Wallace published their papers?]
Applying a tautology to biology served no purpose until atheists realized it could be used to advance their ideology.
[And if it is self-evidently true, why do you spend so much time complaining about it?]
Self-evidently true things are not science. They are ideology. They may or may not be important.
Science is the search for things that are true but not self-evidently so.
lol darwinists are so funny
ReplyDeleteacording to the THEORY of evilution, men come from apes. but why are their still apes?????
Why does 'survivors survive' exclude ID? Designed survivors survive, too.
ReplyDeleteBecause if you needed design to make it true, it couldn't be tautological.
acording to the THEORY of evilution, men come from apes. but why are their still apes?????
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that this is one of the arguments that Answers in Genesis says for creationists to never use because it is so very, very stupid, don't you?
First, evolution doesn't say men came from apes. It says we share a common ancestor with apes.
Second, if Americans came from Eurasia, why are there still Eurasians? While noodling that through, you might see why your "conundrum" is so very silly.
@anon:
ReplyDeleteTautologies are true because of their logical structure, without need for reference to anything else.
All survivors survive. Designed, undesigned, half-designed, whatever.
If design were necessary, then it would not be enough to say "survivors survive". Because it design were necessary only designed survivors would survive. Hence, you would need to amend the statement to "designed survivors survive" for it to be true.
ReplyDelete@anon:
ReplyDelete'A is A' neither needs, nor is altered by, modifiers.
You need to understand the depths of the banality of natural selection.
It means/pedicts/explains nothing.
A careful study of the adaptations themselves, etc is fine and useful science, but Darwin added nothing to it.
'Natural selection' persists as a theory in science because it forms the core of the creation myth of the scientists who have infested evolutionary biology.
It is mindless crap, just like atheism.
Actually, Dr Hovind brillantly demonstrated that evolution is a Satanic conspiracy. Atheists are working for the devil.
ReplyDeleteI think you miss the problem. if you are in favor of intelligent design, then "survivors survive" cannot be a tautology, because it is wrong. Under the theory of intelligent design, undesigned creatures could not survive. Hence, if the only requirement for survival is surviving, then intelligence design cannot be true.
ReplyDeleteBut the problem you have it that natural selection is not tautological. And it is science, and is testable.
Darwinian theory rules out a lot of things. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps. It rules out new species being established without ancestral species. All of these hypotheses are generally testable, and conform to the standards of science. Adaptation is not just defined in terms of what survives. There needs to be a causal story available to make sense of adaptation.
@anon:
ReplyDelete[I think you miss the problem. if you are in favor of intelligent design, then "survivors survive" cannot be a tautology, because it is wrong. Under the theory of intelligent design, undesigned creatures could not survive.]
"survivors survive" can't be wrong. It's a tautology.
"Hence, if the only requirement for survival is surviving, then intelligence design cannot be true."
Survival is survival. Tautology. Why some organisms survive and others don't are questions of adaptations. Good science. Nothing to do with natural selection. Nothing to do with 'survivors survive'.
[But the problem you have it that natural selection is not tautological. And it is science, and is testable.]
Where and when have survivors not survived?
[Darwinian theory rules out a lot of things. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about.]
Inefficient organisms and efficient organisms exist side by side, everywhere, always. What a dumb thing to say.
[It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps.]
Irreducible complexity. So you are a Behe fan?
[It rules out new species being established without ancestral species.]
That's the theory of common descent, which is not the theory of natural selection. Common descent is a real theory. Natural selection is a tautology.
[All of these hypotheses are generally testable, and conform to the standards of science.]
Tautologies like natural selection are not testable. They're true logically, not empirically.
[Adaptation is not just defined in terms of what survives. There needs to be a causal story available to make sense of adaptation.]
What is your definition adaptation?
Irreducible complexity. So you are a Behe fan?
ReplyDeleteI don't think you actually read before you write do you? Natural selection rules out irreducible complexity. And Behe hasn't been able to produce a single example in support of his hypothesis. Intelligent design is entirely without any kind of evidentiary support so far.
And with this last response, your childish games have been exposed. You see, the fact that you sweep all of the elements that make up the theory of evolution by natural selection away, you are left with a tautology. But you have to create a straw-man to do so.
@anon:
ReplyDelete[I don't think you actually read before you write do you? Natural selection rules out irreducible complexity.]
Tautologies have no agency. 'A is A' rules out or in nothing.
[And Behe hasn't been able to produce a single example in support of his hypothesis.]
He's produced many examples.
[Intelligent design is entirely without any kind of evidentiary support so far.]
So you agree that it is a testable scientific theory?
[And with this last response, your childish games have been exposed.]
Drat! I'm foiled in my evil plot!
[You see, the fact that you sweep all of the elements that make up the theory of evolution by natural selection away, you are left with a tautology.]
There's lots of good science in evolution. Darwin's theory of RM + NS isn't the good science part.
[But you have to create a straw-man to do so.]
It's your theory. So far your defense of it is quite a chuckle.
OH noes... there they go again!
ReplyDeleteAnother Blog-o-sphere war XD.
Anonymous(es) is(are) so irreducibly stupid!
ReplyDeleteI like a good fight, especially when the opponent is so moronic…
How can you believe in evolution if its only a theory (a geuss)?
ReplyDelete@True Christian:
ReplyDeleteI believe that living things have changed with time and that the study of populations and adaptations is good science. That's the sense in which I believe in evolution. Only in that sense.
I believe that God creates all of nature, and holds it in existence. I believe that His teleology permeates nature.
I'm not a young earth creationist, because I don't think that the evidence supports that view. I have a great deal of respect and fondness for young earth creationists, on the basis of friendships, a shared love for Christ, and respect for their correct view that God is the Author of nature. But I don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old.
My understanding of the fossil record is that many species appear very suddenly, and I believe that special creation could be an explanation for that. I don't think that common ancestry is proven or anywhere close to proven, although it is a reasonable hypothesis.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThe spam filter isn't working.
I'll confine myself to a short comment. I doubt that 'God creates all of nature, and holds it in existence'. If we cherish this world with all its beauty then I think that it's necessary to strive to maintain it, rather than hoping for a mythical deity to rescue us.
Species change rapidly only in geological time, which is very slow in human terms.
Bach, without anything else... what we got... Let's say that there is no God, so no judgements in the end of life, no eternal love, no salvation, no anything related to God or gods from other religions.
ReplyDeleteNo after life... no soul, no spirit.
Let's say that materialism is indeed true...
So ... what is the point to life to help this world and us ??? the FINAL CONSEQUENCE is death. Our lives will be nothing more but a fight for power, desire, instinct. No future for us as a especies really, just vanished like dust in the wind XD * good song by the way *
See... you won't remmber anything good or bad that you did or experienced. Everything you did was equaly worthless as this worthless world and it's worthless beauty.
So... I don't know... maybe the Deity, the Transcendant, The Superior ... or whatever Existence, Being, Reality that could be out there is not such a bad thing.
That is why ... Pascal did his wager. Truly, we have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
>Pascal's wager
ReplyDelete>2011
I seriously hope you guys don't do this.
Edward,
ReplyDeleteI think we actually have everything to lose and nothing to gain if we assume that there is a treaty deity who is going to save us from the consequences of our bad decisions, our assumptions that the resources are infinite on a planet that is in reality finite, just because it makes us feel better.
I don't know about you, what I do want to leave the planet in much the same or a better condition than what I found it in for future generations to enjoy.
I think that is a much more sensible attitude than the one espoused by Michael that 'God creates all of nature, and holds it in existence'.
Do you really think that this world is worthless, that its beauty is worthless without a god?
@ iloveJesus & True Christian.
ReplyDeleteILJ, The common ancestor was a squirrel like creature, according to Darwinian legend. So the real question becomes the one materialists hate the most: 'Why' did men and apes evolve from squirrel-like creature - for what purpose? What is wrong with squirrels, and what is the reproductive advantage of being a hominid (ape-like)? What is the advantage to a smaller population of larger animals that instinctively control all the other animals?
Such a change is obviously made with purpose, so what IS IT? Atheists/materialists do NOT see this purpose; or more correctly they IGNORE it. They DENY teleology in nature, hence the utter weakness of their position and the desperate nature of their defence of it.
Their answer to these mysteries? 'Survivors Survive' or on a metaphysical/moral/spiritual level: Sh!t happens. They will, however, snowjob you with technical jargon and terms to make it SOUND like science. I think they learned this from Mr Spock (A Creationist).
But I think I get your point. Why have apes/men? Rodent like mammals are very successful, so why not just be one of them? WHY change at all? Shark did not, the 'living fossils' of all sorts did not...so WHY us? It's a good question.
TC,
I get your question. The REALITY of life compared to an abstracted notion/'theory' (banal observation really) about about the process we call evolution is a NON contest. Reality (and God) win every time...well almost - read above.
On the young Earth stuff. I too am not of that dogma. In fact, when it comes to time and physics I like to leave the door WIDE open.
The way I see it, Creationism requires no young/old earth division. If the Creator is the author of ALL, including time itself, then our measures of it are pointless in determining when he 'started the engine' of time for us in our existence. 'When' it was created is not important, as the past and future are created at once and from an external position. The past and future are still a supernatural reality to us, no matter the order of their creation.
6000 years? 600, 000, 000, 000 years? No dif. The past was created WITH the present and future, by a creator beyond time. The true present is constant and external, and is the act of creation itself.
I hope that is remotely intelligible. The physical aspect of my nature still requires stimulus in the form of COFFEE in the subjective present, that is.
(Head explodes).
Costanza wrote:
ReplyDelete">Pascal's wager
>2011
I seriously hope you guys don't do this."
No one has ever answered the wager sensibly from the Atheist side of the debate. Many have made fools of themselves trying, but none have succeeded. So OF COURSE your materialist cage is rattled by it's mention.
ALSO: Out of curiosity what does ad 2011 have to do with with Pascal, evolution, creationism, or monistic materialism (Atheism)? Is it because you think the world will end in ad 2012?
CrusadeRex,
ReplyDeleteMammals during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods were small, nocturnal and shrew-like, because the dinosaurs were much more successful and filled all the main ecological niches. The mammals were small and timid, desperately trying to stay out of the way of larger vicious diurnal dinosaur predators.
When the non-avian dinosaurs went extent at the K-T event, possibly to the Chicxulub impact or the Indian Deccan traps supervolcano, the mammals were liberated and were free to radiate into all the now empty niches.
No matter where you look in the world, if there is a possible food source, some species will be there eating it. Nothing goes wasted.
Bach, remember I am not beginning with Theism per se.
ReplyDeleteI am beginning with Atheism + Materialism + What you see is what you get.
As to the planet, I would to have a better world, but these ideas of legacy in the context which I spoke are meaningless. Worry about something that will not even be part of my life which had no value, which will not be remembered... Sound too illogical, I have to worry just with the things that the whole Ontological/metaphysical philosophy allows me to.
Bach, beatuy of our world is in our head, our minds. There is no real beauty in our world, except the one you said it has. The moment you die, those worthless monkey/ape/human thoughts will just be "dead" and gone. No beauty in the world really.
Why to trick myself into believing that there is Beauty if I know it is nothing more but a trick. After I know how things are, no need to play childish games let's say. Sort of the same thing as Tragic Atheists think, but their conclusion at least see the proccess which we call life by the way it is.
If we desire something else... well that is just denial. Isn't that how so many people try to explain Religion... the denial of death and they are all nutz and stuff.
Bach, and remember ... there is no Dichotomy between Theism and Helping the Future... Read more about the Saints in the Catholic church, read maybe more about great men from the East. I am certain that caring about the future and Theism can live together... why not right ??? not all Theists are waiting for God to do something... not even the ones in the Bible did that.
* Well maybe not couting the part where Jesus ask to God to help him before he was captured... but still, the Biblical Jesus was a MAN/God of action! *
Constanza...
ReplyDelete??? huh ???
I am not argumenting for God, if that is what you trying to refer to.
I am talking about existantial questions. Not exactly Theology.
Anyway, Bach did the Atheist wager, which is exactly like Pascal's wager... are you reading the posts ????