Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Aloysium]

If we confirm it is the site of Sodom and Gomorrah then I’d have no reason to reject it scientifically being a coincidence while simultaneously being an intended occurrence by God.

It is a “coincidence” because science is blind to knowledge of such causalities. I would reject any pseudoscientific attempt to imply that the co-incidence of events meant they were uncaused.

 

[Techno2000]

buffalo:

Definitely not empirical science (observable, repeatable and predictable). Evolution is philosophy and for some a religion.

We can observe elephants evolving under pressure from a change in their environment.

If that change is not down to Darwinian evolution then how do you explain it?

rossum

How in the world could evolution understand the idea of poachers ?

 

[o_mlly]

As far as my argumentation is concerned I believe I have already pointed out your logical error.

I do not believe that you pointed out my logical error. Rather we have yet to square your illogical claims as being somehow coherent:

https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/speciation-183

Speciation is a process that results in the accumulation of many small genetic changes called mutations in a population over a long period of time. … There are a number of different mechanisms that may drive speciation. One of these is natural selection.

PickyPicky’s Daft Argument

• Natural selection is a cause of speciation
• But attempts to determine causes as isolated and discrete to their effects are daft
• Unless the cause is proximate
• Speciation is an effect caused by prior non-proximate and non-discrete (continuous) natural selection mutations over a long period of time
• But believing natural selection is a cause to speciation is not daft ???

 

[rossum]

She’s only a little bit pregnant!

Not me, officer. I wasn’t there when it wasn’t being done. Honest.

rossum

 

[Wozza]

rossum:

buffalo:

Definitely not empirical science (observable, repeatable and predictable). Evolution is philosophy and for some a religion.

We can observe elephants evolving under pressure from a change in their environment.

If that change is not down to Darwinian evolution then how do you explain it?

rossum

How in the world could evolution understand the idea of poachers ?

Stunned silence…

 

[rossum]

How in the world could evolution understand the idea of poachers ?

It does not ‘understand’ anything. If a predator is consistently removing individuals with large tusks from the population then the genes for large tusks will become relatively less common, and the genes for small or no tusks will become relatively more common.

Since evolution is defined as “change in the genome of a population over time” then that is evolution.

rossum

 

[Wozza]

Techno2000:

How in the world could evolution understand the idea of poachers ?

It does not ‘understand’ anything. If a predator is consistently removing individuals with large tusks from the population then the genes for large tusks will become relatively less common, and the genes for small or no tusks will become relatively more common.

Since evolution is defined as “change in the genome of a population over time” then that is evolution.

rossum

To save Bufallo some typing:

1. How do you know, you weren’t there.
2. You can’t drag 100,000 elephants into the laboratory.
3. That’s just micro evolution.
4. They’re still just elephants.
5. They are devolving.
6. It’s just a ruse by atheist poachers to deny God.
7. All of the above.

Ten bucks on him picking 7.

 

[o_mlly]

If a predator is consistently removing individuals with large tusks from the population then the genes for large tusks will become relatively less common, and the genes for small or no tusks will become relatively more common.

I can buy into this definition of how change occurs in the populations of creatures.

From the above “less common/more common” we can conclude that rather than evolving new genes, that genes manifest or recede with changes in environment. This conclusion of a constant genome squares the explanation of population changes with the principle of sufficient reason – the genes responsible were and always will be present.

Why would the above interpretation be less likely than the interpretation of evolving new genes?

 

[PickyPicky]

Nonsense. It would be daft to argue that natural selection is the isolated, discrete, cause of evolution, it is not daft to argue that natural selection is a cause of evolution.

 

[o_mlly]

Nonsense. It would be daft to argue that natural selection is the isolated, discrete, cause of evolution, it is not daft to argue that natural selection is a cause of evolution.

Please read your argument again. I did not use the definite article but the indefinite to describe natural selection as a cause to speciation in your argument. Your argument remains daft.

 

[IWantGod]

And if space-time and energy-matter are all contingent, that does not mean the Universe that contains them is contingent.

The distinction you make between space-time and the universe is nonsensical. Physical reality changes, and your denial of this fact doesn’t make your position reasonable.

Like i said before you are just trying to excuse yourself from the problem for which an uncaused cause is the only logical solution.

 

[PickyPicky]

• Natural selection is a cause of speciation
• But attempts to determine causes as isolated and discrete to their effects are daft
• Unless the cause is proximate
• Speciation is an effect caused by prior non-proximate and non-discrete (continuous) natural selection mutations over a long period of time
• But believing natural selection is a cause to speciation is not daft ?

1 yes
2/3 yes, if the cause is proximate it can be identified as contributing to the effect; the less proximate, the more hazardous the identification.
4 no. Natural selection and mutations and the environment are all proximate.
5 yes.

 

[PickyPicky]

Failing to disitinguish between the whole and the parts is the very essence of the fallacy of composition.

 

[IWantGod]

Failing to disitinguish between the whole and the parts is the very essence of the fallacy of composition.

But that’s clearly not true in all cases because there is no distinction between space-time and the universe. The word Universe refers to space-time and everything that it comprises. Your distinction is meaningless. Therefore your fallacy charge does not apply in this case.

 

[o_mlly]

4 no. Natural selection and mutations and the environment are all proximate.

That’s not the point. The point is that the effect – speciation – is proximate to natural selection mutations.

If speciation were proximate to naturally selected mutations then we would have many observations of speciation. But we don 't… (Notwithstanding Rossum’s erroneous claim of asexual crawdads from Texas somewhere in a fish tank in Germany.)

 

[PickyPicky]

The word Universe refers to space-time and everything that it comprises

Or perhaps it refers to space-time and matter and energy. Or, if there are or have been or will be multiple space-times within the Universe, it refers to them all as a collection. We do not know. Whatever it is a collection of, it is a fallacy to propose that its characteristics are identical to those of its parts.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Uriel1:

t’s just that the Darwinians are not founded in science,

Definitely not empirical science (observable, repeatable and predictable). Evolution is philosophy and for some a religion.

This claim is despite the empirical evidence that has been presented. Evolution is just as much a science as other theories about the past, such as plate tectonics and periodic magnetic field reversal. The only reason you have trouble seeing it as science is that it contradicts your narrow reading of Genesis. If Genesis had said something contrary to plate tectonics or periodic magnetic field reversal in the past you would have been calling those theories unscientific too.

 

[PickyPicky]

That’s not the point. The point is that the effect – speciation – is proximate to natural selection mutations

When speciation occurs, natural selection, mutations, and the environment, are all proximate to the speciation event. Will that do you?

 

[IWantGod]

Or, if there are or have been or will be multiple space-times within the Universe, it refers to them all as a collection. We do not know.

We know that physical reality is space-time and everything that it comprises. It doesn’t matter how much of it there is. The only fallacy that is being made is the assertion that there is a distinction between the universe and space-time. It’s a meaningless distinction that you made up to avoid the conclusion of my argument… What you are saying isn’t even scientifically valid let alone philosophically reasonable.

 

[Aloysium]

Evolution is just as much a science as other theories about the past, such as plate tectonics and periodic magnetic field reversal.

It’s hard to get the point across where the counterargument is that human existence is explicable using the principles that describe a rock.