Time to clear the decks...

[Ancalagon]

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

Because you cant. You know that theists do not understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. You know very well.

Stick your fingers in your ears like the rest of the creationists, go on. Thats how all of you debate anyway.

 

[Geriatrix]

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

Well, that won't do.

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.

Black holes?
Life?
Pi?
Consciousnesses?
The plot to Inception?

 

[thestaggy]

Well, that won't do.


Black holes?
Life?
Pi?
Consciousnesses?
The plot to Inception?

The Terminator time-travel paradox is more complicated than the plot to Inception, IMHO.

 

[Ancalagon]

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...

Well frankly I am getting sick of these evolution threads. They always go like this:

Creationist: Evolution is a lie because I fed my cat a flower but it didnt evolve into pikachu. And there is no way life started from a bunch of chemicals, last night I mixed handy andy, sunlight soap and a bar of chocolate, and cooked it on the stove for 3 hours, but I didnt see any T rexes (there was a weird froth on the surface though). Clearly evolution is a lie because of foul broth did not evolve into a charizard.
Person who understands evolution: I would welcome a debate on evolution. Might I point out that evolution takes generations, possibly thousands of years, in order for results to be visible? Also evolution doesnt have anything to do with the origin of life, thats abiogenesis.
Creationist: Hurp a dur, heres a quote from a guy who has his Phd in Theoretical Physics from the Christian University of Texas, he says evolution is a lie and a governmint conspiracy. And what about that fossil record stuff, I hear its all fake.
Person who understands evolution: oh boy. Why bother?

I know it sounds insulting, and I'm sorry if the dear reader of this is one of few who understands the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, but for the majority, what I say is true, and thats why these threads go like they do, and thats why they are so uninteresting.

 

[Techne]

Well, that won't do.


Black holes?
Life?
Pi?
Consciousnesses?
The plot to Inception?

No definition, no claim of existence. I am not saying the above things have clear, distinct, consistent and coherent definitions (life, Pi, consciousness and black holes appear pretty clear to me), just pointing out something trivially true.

 

[Unhappy438]

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

Everyone knows this thread was created with religious motives in mind.

 

[Techne]

Because you cant. You know that theists do not understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. You know very well.

Stick your fingers in your ears like the rest of the creationists, go on. Thats how all of you debate anyway.

You know very well you are making nonsense and fallacious generalizations about theists.

 

[Techne]

Everyone knows this thread was created with religious motives in mind.

That is your opinion. I disagree. I see no reason to drag religion into this discussion.

 

[porchrat]

Well frankly I am getting sick of these evolution threads. They always go like this:

Creationist: Evolution is a lie because I fed my cat a flower but it didnt evolve into pikachu. And there is no way life started from a bunch of chemicals, last night I mixed handy andy, sunlight soap and a bar of chocolate, and cooked it on the stove for 3 hours, but I didnt see any T rexes (there was a weird froth on the surface though). Clearly evolution is a lie because of foul broth did not evolve into a charizard.
Person who understands evolution: I would welcome a debate on evolution. Might I point out that evolution takes generations, possibly thousands of years, in order for results to be visible? Also evolution doesnt have anything to do with the origin of life, thats abiogenesis.
Creationist: Hurp a dur, heres a quote from a guy who has his Phd in Theoretical Physics from the Christian University of Texas, he says evolution is a lie and a governmint conspiracy. And what about that fossil record stuff, I hear its all fake.
Person who understands evolution: oh boy. Why bother?

I know it sounds insulting, and I'm sorry if the dear reader of this is one of few who understands the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, but for the majority, what I say is true, and thats why these threads go like they do, and thats why they are so uninteresting.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying those kind of folks don't exist. They do. There are tons of them on this forum alone. However even in my admittedly limited experience not all theists (note that this is the word you have been using up until now) are like that.

However I have yet to meet a YEC that isn't like that. I'm guessing that if there are some literal bible creationists out there that actually understand evolution then they are in the minority considering that it takes blind faith to hold to the Genesis account anyway and so sciencey-talk is unlikely to get that sort of person interested.

 

[Geriatrix]

The Terminator time-travel paradox is more complicated than the plot to Inception, IMHO.

Shush you! You'll distract me!

No definition, no claim of existence. I am not saying the above things have clear, distinct, consistent and coherent definitions (life, Pi, consciousness and black holes appear pretty clear to me), just pointing out something trivially true.

Right. So when I say natural selection, how do you define it?

 

[TJ99]

Right. So when I say natural selection, how do you define it?

Don't go there, it's a trap. You're more likely to get a straight answer from the department of communication about deadlines. You'll just end up getting into one of those "discussions" (circlce-jerks) copacetic and porchrat were complaining about and get the thread locked.

 

[Geriatrix]

Well frankly I am getting sick of these evolution threads. They always go like this:

Creationist: Evolution is a lie because I fed my cat a flower but it didnt evolve into pikachu. And there is no way life started from a bunch of chemicals, last night I mixed handy andy, sunlight soap and a bar of chocolate, and cooked it on the stove for 3 hours, but I didnt see any T rexes (there was a weird froth on the surface though). Clearly evolution is a lie because of foul broth did not evolve into a charizard.
Person who understands evolution: I would welcome a debate on evolution. Might I point out that evolution takes generations, possibly thousands of years, in order for results to be visible? Also evolution doesnt have anything to do with the origin of life, thats abiogenesis.
Creationist: Hurp a dur, heres a quote from a guy who has his Phd in Theoretical Physics from the Christian University of Texas, he says evolution is a lie and a governmint conspiracy. And what about that fossil record stuff, I hear its all fake.
Person who understands evolution: oh boy. Why bother?

I know it sounds insulting, and I'm sorry if the dear reader of this is one of few who understands the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, but for the majority, what I say is true, and thats why these threads go like they do, and thats why they are so uninteresting.

You will enjoy this, I think.
http://www.quickmeme.com/Scumbag-Christian/

 

[Geriatrix]

Don't go there, it's a trap. You're more likely to get a straight answer from the department of communication about deadlines. You'll just end up getting into one of those "discussions" (circlce-jerks) copacetic and porchrat were complaining about and get the thread locked.

Sometimes, table tennis kills some time between renders.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

 

[copacetic]

That is your opinion. I disagree. I see no reason to drag religion into this discussion.

You see, this I can't help but find a bit disingenuous... While I can't possibly agree either with the 99.9999% comment, for obvious reasons, in the context of these types of threads and taking into account the historical postings of the people who generally start threads like this...

...Ignoring the religious aspect of the motivation for threads like this is either ignorant, or deceitful.

Put another way, I'd be interested if anyone can point to a thread with a similar tone, started by a non-theist...

 

[Techne]

You see, this I can't help but find a bit disingenuous... While I can't possibly agree either with the 99.9999% comment, for obvious reasons, in the context of these types of threads and taking into account the historical postings of the people who generally start threads like this...

...Ignoring the religious aspect of the motivation for threads like this is either ignorant, or deceitful.

Put another way, I'd be interested if anyone can point to a thread with a similar tone, started by a non-theist...

Stop trying to find excuses to drag religion into the discussion.

 

[copacetic]

Stop trying to find excuses to drag religion into the discussion.

It seems pertinent to point out that the words 'religion' and 'non-creationist' are contained within the quote that the first post is comprised of...

 

[Techne]

It seems pertinent to point out that the words 'religion' and 'non-creationist' are contained within the quote that the first post is comprised of...

This does not imply that religion has to be dragged into the discussion. In fact, I see no need to.

Shush you! You'll distract me!


Right. So when I say natural selection, how do you define it?

The way I see it now is:
1) I see it as a descriptive term to describe when you have individuals in a population that have some kind of variation and fitness differences and are able to pass on their traits. I think I agree with Martin Nowak's mathematical representation of fitness as the rate of reproduction (see Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life). I think a propensity interpretation of fitness is compatible with this view.
2) I don't see natural selection as a cause or a force or a mechanism.

 

[Geriatrix]

This does not imply that religion has to be dragged into the discussion. In fact, I see no need to.

I think it was OP's intention, hence the choice of words.

The way I see it now is:
1) I see it as a descriptive term to describe when you have individuals in a population that have some kind of variation and fitness differences and are able to pass on their traits. I think I agree with Martin Nowak's mathematical representation of fitness as the rate of reproduction (see Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life). I think a propensity interpretation of fitness is compatible with this view.
2) I don't see natural selection as a cause or a force or a mechanism.

1)Sounds about right to me. High Five!

2)If 5 chimps in a group of 7 died out as a result of no.1 above in time frame A, it would cause the direction of change in the same group, now with 2 chimpies, in a different direction in later time frame B. Is that a cause? Meta-cause? It's no coincidence.

 

[Unhappy438]

The fact that this group (i shall label them) only questions the theory of evolution in the manner that they do is all but proof that it is religion related. Why do they not question other scientific theories in such an aggressive manner? Of course i have no problem with one questioning scientific theories but then one must atleast have something better to back it up with. They don't do this, instead they sit on the internet (the product of relativity theory, quantum mechanics theory, electro-magnetic theory) saying mildly retarded things with their fingers in their ears.

Techne's only answer to this will be "stop bringing religion into the debate".