Time to clear the decks...

[Techne]

Wiki suggests "Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

A causal propensity or statistical effect or something else?
Mechanism? Or is it? Jerry Coyne says it isn't a mechanism...In what way is it or is it not a mechanism?
Prescriptive or descriptive?
A process or an outcome?
A cause or force? In what way?

 

[copacetic]

This is the Natural Sciences section FFS take this philosophy where it belongs... PD!

Philosophy in PD? What are you, drunk?

 

[porchrat]

Philosophy in PD? What are you, drunk?

Sick. Close enough.

Still this is annoying. Over the ast few days it seems Natural Sciences has just descended into one idiotic creationism vs. evolution thread after another. I certainly hope this isn't a trend.

 

[Geriatrix]

A causal propensity or statistical effect or something else?
Mechanism? Or is it? Jerry Coyne says it isn't a mechanism...In what way is it or is it not a mechanism?
Prescriptive or descriptive?
A process or an outcome?
A cause or force? In what way?

Ah, so it's not a dispute as to it's existence, more a dispute on it's particularities? From my own perspective it's not a mechanism either.

 

[copacetic]

Sick. Close enough.

Still this is annoying. Over the ast few days it seems Natural Sciences has just descended into one idiotic creationism vs. evolution thread after another. I certainly hope this isn't a trend.

Techne must be loving it, as he can then join in the fun.

Sick eh? Yes indeed, I've not had a sense of smell or taste for 2 weeks now.

 

[CR34M3]

...or at the very least reintroduce true scientific method and thought.
Kick out the loud mouths, stab the intolerant in the eye, stamp out agenda's; whatever happened to real scientists?

“The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951).

Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.”

-- Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 336.

Or is that just wishful thinking.

I'm a bit lost here. I thought evolution did not (and does not attempt) to address the origin of life. Isn't that the work of abiogenesis? Seems like a misdirected attack or misinterpretation of the OP by commentators in this thread.

 

[Techne]

Ah, so it's not a dispute as to it's existence, more a dispute on it's particularities? From my own perspective it's not a mechanism either.

But wiki and Jerry Coyne say it is a mechanism. In Coyne's book, Why Evolution Is True page 3, h writes:

In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.

So, in why is it or is it not a mechanism? And how can a person claim something exists if there is no clear definition of it?

 

[copacetic]

I'm a bit lost here. I thought evolution did not (and does not attempt) to address the origin of life. Isn't that the work of abiogenesis? Seems like a misdirected attack or misinterpretation of the OP by commentators in this thread.

Oh, most people have pretty astutely honed in on the motivations for this thread and others...

It will be denied, and we will be called evil scumsucking disingenuous, generalizing materialist pigs (although not in so many words), etc, etc...

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm a bit lost here. I thought evolution did not (and does not attempt) to address the origin of life. Isn't that the work of abiogenesis? Seems like a misdirected attack or misinterpretation of the OP by commentators in this thread.

This is my point. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Yet because theists do not understand it, they think it does. So they debate something they dont understand, and never want to attempt to understand.

 

[Techne]

This is my point. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Yet because theists do not understand it, they think it does. So they debate something they dont understand, and never want to attempt to understand.

More generalizing and insulting nonsense :erm:.

 

[Unhappy438]

More generalizing and insulting nonsense :erm:.

This is your only ploy, as soon as someone comes out with something legitimate or is the truth you say they are insulting,fabricating or generalizing. Getting sick of you and your troop of trolls in the natural science thread.

 

[Ancalagon]

More generalizing and insulting nonsense :erm:.

Sorry, its just the truth. 99% of them dont know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

99.999% get hooked on the whole theory terminology, not understanding how science works (ie gravity is also a theory).

And its not like we "evolutionists" have never tried to explain both points. Look at our post history - we really have tried!

But eventually I realized theists do not want to understand evolution. They really dont. Understanding it in some way threatens their world view, so they refuse to.

Why else would people confuse abiogenesis and evolution after all this time? I refuse to believe that everyone who debates on these forums (and in other places) is so slow, stupid and/or ignorant as to be incapable of understanding the difference. Yet the mistake is always made. Why?

 

[Techne]

Sorry, its just the truth. 99% of them dont know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

99.999% get hooked on the whole theory terminology, not understanding how science works (ie gravity is also a theory).

And its not like we "evolutionists" have never tried to explain both points. Look at our post history - we really have tried!

But eventually I realized theists do not want to understand evolution. They really dont. Understanding it in some way threatens their world view, so they refuse to.

Why else would people confuse abiogenesis and evolution after all this time? I refuse to believe that everyone who debates on these forums (and in other places) is so slow, stupid and/or ignorant as to be incapable of understanding the difference. Yet the mistake is always made. Why?

Sorry, but you are still making silly generalizations about theists. it is fallacious and insulting. No need refute to such silly fallacious nonsense.

 

[Geriatrix]

So, in why is it or is it not a mechanism? And how can a person claim something exists if there is no clear definition of it?

So are you saying natural selection does not exist?
Can results not lead to a new inputs?
How do you manifests biological change?

 

[Techne]

This is your only ploy, as soon as someone comes out with something legitimate or is the truth you say they are insulting,fabricating or generalizing. Getting sick of you and your troop of trolls in the natural science thread.

Direct your frustration at people that try to drag religion and theism into discussions when it is uncalled for.

 

[porchrat]

Got to go with Techne here. Perhaps in your experience the majority of theists you have met have a very limited understanding of evolutionary theories (that is certainly my experience) but that doesn't mean they all do.

 

[Techne]

So are you saying natural selection does not exist?
Can results not lead to a new inputs?
How do you manifests biological change?

I am saying that one cannot claim something exists or does not exist if you don't have a clear defintion of it. This is trivially true and applies to the concepts of natural selection and fitness.

 

[Techne]

Got to go with Techne here. Perhaps in your experience the majority of theists you have met have a very limited understanding of evolutionary theories (that is certainly my experience) but that doesn't mean they all do.

/me Picks up jaw from desk. You got a fever or something ?

 

[porchrat]

I am saying that one cannot claim something exists or does not exist if you don't have a clear defintion of it. This is trivially true and applies to the concepts of natural selection and fitness.

Don't fall for it. Techne wants to drag you into YET ANOTHER debate about definitions. You will be drowned in isms.

 

[porchrat]

/me Picks up jaw from desk. You got a fever or something ?

Nah dude you are just IMO perfectly correct here. Surely by now you have come to the understanding that if there is one thing I am not very tolerant of it is generalisations.

But yea I think I may have a bit of a fever now that you mention it...