Evolution is Fact

[C1ay]

Well Univac, you've stated your hypothesis. Now show us some proof. You did read the rules here right?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by univac

There is a differance between...

All you've done with your post is to make completely unsupportable assertions which demonstrate both your blind allegiance to some imaginary celestial dictator and falsehood laden childish fairy tales which are taught as absolute truth, as well as your inability to spell. Your post also had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion. You're battin' a thousand there, chief.

[Moontanman]

I think this is very interesting

Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests - being-human - 27 May 2008 - New Scientist

[Isomotopes]

Evolution is of course inevitably true look at humans our relationship to apes is far to close to be chance yet we are not the same we have changed slightly and become more intelligent and more adaptable. Yet in terms of how we evolved is very hard to imagine and what triggered that change no-one knows

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by univac

...God is the reason of intention and all creation are reconciled to him through the reconciliation Christ Jesus, Yes we are all energy cells (electrons a negative electric charge) God is the (nucleus) as christ is (proton neutron).the Alpha and the Omega....

univac, you are preaching. Please read our rules.
And you are spouting (for lack of a better word) gibberish. Please read our rules.

Pyro

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Isomotopes

Evolution is of course inevitably true...Yet in terms of how we evolved is very hard to imagine and what triggered that change no-one knows

Isomotopes,
I have heard many say that they cannot imagine how evolution could happen, how changes could be triggered, how species could split, and so forth. And yet I find that I can imagine all this quite easily. And I am not alone in this.

I think the difference between the two groups is this: the first group is stuck with taxonomic reifism. What's that, you may ask. Thank you, I will explain.

Taxonomy is the "science" (actually an organizational discipline) of naming plants and animals--while grouping them in hierarchies according to their similarities. So all "dogs" are grouped among the Canines, and together with horses and humans, are all grouped among the Mammals, etc. It is taxonomy that defines "species"--it does this principally by choosing which animals belong IN the species and which do not.

Reifism comes from the word "reify"--to regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence. A "species" is an abstraction, an arbitrary organizational and naming convention that we impose upon Life as we know it. To believe that a "species" is a cast-in-concrete partition separating one kind of Life eternally from all other kinds, is taxonomic reifism.

An excellent expression of taxonomic reifism is the modern interpretation of the verse in the Old Testament where God declares that "every animal shall reproduce after its own kind". This is taken to mean that a dog is a "DOG" and no matter how you change its fur color or the shape of its ears or its size, it is still a "DOG". This assumes that there is some property of DOGNESS or DOGOSITY that is eternal and independent of our mortal perceptions.

That is not true. Taxonomy is a human derived structure, a linguistic structure, based upon our all-too-fallible perceptions and cultural assumptions. There is NO DOGNESS. The only reason we consider a chihuahua to be in the "Dog" species is because: (1) we know that the predecessors of chihuahuas were indeed "dogs", and (2) we're too lazy or unconcerned to consider whether or not the appearance of the animal is so far removed from the norm (not to mention its questionable ability to mate with real dogs in the wild) that the nomenclature "chihuahua" should be raised to the status of a new species name.

Despite appearances, we do NOT classify hyenas as "Dogs".

There is NO DOGNESS in Nature. There are NO species boundaries in Nature. A strand of DNA is not "marked" or bounded or limited to "Dog" or "Cat" or "Horse". The DNA simply procreates whatever it is programmed to procreate in a given placental environment. With variation.

Technically speaking, animals do NOT reproduce after their own kind. Unless you got an animal that creates clones of itself, like many bacteria.

Over geologic time (thousands of generations), what an animal eventually looks like and how it behaves is a function of random variations and non-random Natural Selection by the animal's physical environment and ecological environment. It is a "drunkard's walk" through the phase space of all genomic possibilities. "Where it goes, nobody knows."

If there are NO reified species boundaries, then it is not difficult to imagine how animals and plants can evolve and change and reformulate themselves in response to external forces--and those changes are themselves without limits, given enough Deep Time.

[InfiniteNow]

I love you, man.

Profound and still accessible. Well done, sir.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Over geologic time (thousands of generations), what an animal eventually looks like and how it behaves is a function of random variations and non-random Natural Selection by the animal's physical environment and ecological environment. It is a "drunkard's walk" through the phase space of all genomic possibilities. "Where it goes, nobody knows."

But Pyro, doesn't this mean we humans aren't special? I can't accept that. I can't. We have to be special, otherwise we're not really important. I refuse to believe such things. (hand up, turn away, refuse, deny, avoid, scoff, resist)

In the Bible, God says we're the chosen ones. We are created in his image. I like the sound of that better. Why shouldn't I believe that instead?


P.S. I tried to rep your post above but couldn't yet. Damn!

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by REASON

P.S. I tried to rep your post above but couldn't yet. Damn!

Don't worry, he got rep for it.
It is indeed a beautiful post, highly rep-able.

[coldcreation]

.

Yes, very nice post Pyro.
I wanted to add something but couldn't think of anything.

You said it all.

“To dispute with a drunkard is to debate with an empty house”
Publilius Syrus quote
(Roman author, 1st century B.C.)


“He is a drunkard who takes more than three glasses though he be not drunk.”
Epictetus quote
(Greek philosopher associated with the Stoics, AD 55-c.135)


CC