Cult Evolution

S.A.M. said:
Exactly. :mad:

Evolution does not "produce" anything. The benefits are retroactive to the diversity.

The "adaptation" is an inference after the fact.

IOW:
Click to expand...

Well, if by "produce" we simply mean to generate from some precursor then evolution "produces" adaptations that lead, sometimes, to speciation.

The phrasing of your sentences above confuses me. :grumble:
 
superluminal said:
Well, if by "produce" we simply mean to generate from some precursor then evolution "produces" adaptations that lead, sometimes, to speciation.

The phrasing of your sentences above confuses me. :grumble:
Click to expand...

Does evolution "produce" adaptations? :grumble:
 
S.A.M. said:
Does evolution "produce" adaptations? :grumble:
Click to expand...
Yar. If ye be talkin' in a real general way it be producin' adaptations. The process we be considren' has the side benefit of yieldin' adaptations. Be that more to yer liking young lady?
laugh.gif
 
Crunchy Cat said:
IThe resulting behavior is belief. While it may re-inforce racism and the other behaviors you mentioned... it is not the source.
Click to expand...

It might very well be the source, or at least an affirmation of the theist mindset.

If we were both uneducated dolts and you believed what I believed (lets say the IPU) then I would share my resources with you and increase your odds of reproduction (persistence).
Click to expand...

If your beliefs rested entirely on the supernatural, then your beliefs are useless and would only increase my odds of reproduction with like minded supernatural believers. Over time, this position is not sustainable.
 
greenberg said:
I suspect such would be the case if humans had "intrinsic nature" and this nature would be "good".

I don't think this is the case.
Click to expand...

Ah, but it is the case, this is exactly how morals and ethics evolve in mankind.
 
S.A.M. said:
Please explain this process:

natural selection has caused as much as 10 percent of the human genome to change in some populations
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ok sam. Look. You can pretend to be confused by simple human language all day long if you want. It makes it sound like you have an agenda and are trying to show something to be wrong or untrue. Maybe you are.

If I say that a bump in the road "caused" me to wreck my car, am I implying that the bump somehow posessed a purpose? Clearly not.

Natural selection is a very simple process that causes genes with greater survival value to become more frequent in a population. Is that not a simple statement?

It's not "directed" any more than the bump in the road was "directed" at the demise of my car.

Are there any more ultra-subtle semantic issues you have with this? :scratchin:
 
superluminal said:
Ok sam. Look. You can pretend to be confused by simple human language all day long if you want. It makes it sound like you have an agenda and are trying to show something to be wrong or untrue. Maybe you are.

If I say that a bump in the road "caused" me to wreck my car, am I implying that the bump somehow posessed a purpose? Clearly not.

Natural selection is a very simple process that causes genes with greater survival value to become more frequent in a population. Is that not a simple statement?

It's not "directed" any more than the bump in the road was "directed" at the demise of my car.

Are there any more ultra-subtle semantic issues you have with this? :scratchin:
Click to expand...

Nah, thats fine.

As long as we dump the rhetoric on cause-effect of evolution that misses the basic premise of natural selection vs the environment.

Btw, why is it called natural selection? And does it select for genes that survive or genes that don't?
 
S.A.M. said:
Btw, why is it called natural selection?
Click to expand...
Natural as opposed to human selection. Which we've been doing for at least 15 to 20 thousand years. Maybe more.

And does it select for genes that survive or genes that don't?
Click to expand...
Hmm... I suppose you can look at it however you wish. Although "selecting" has a positive ring to it, as in "selecting for" as opposed to "selecting against" but I've heard and read both.

So, I think it selects for genes or gene complexes that confer a survival advantage to the "survival machines" that carry them.
 
superluminal said:
Natural as opposed to human selection. Which we've been doing for at least 15 to 20 thousand years.
Click to expand...

You mean sans human intervention. Like religion?;)
Hmm... I suppose you can look at it however you wish. Although "selecting" has a positive ring to it, as in "selecting for" as opposed to "selecting against" but I've heard and read both.

So, I think it selects for genes or gene complexes that confer a survival advantage to the "survival machines" that carry them.
Click to expand...

So you're saying there are no other genes apart from those required. :shy:
 
I'm challenging the premise of your OP that evolution equals indoctrination.
 
S.A.M. said:
You mean sans human intervention. Like religion?;)
Click to expand...
No! I have no idea where that fits in??? :confused:

So you're saying there are no other genes apart from those required. :shy:
Click to expand...
NO! Stop doing that! That "so you're saying" thing. I'm not saying any such thing!

You need to define what you mean by "required". For what? Genes that were "required" may not be "required" in a given environment that changes in some way. We are loaded with "junk" (non-coding) DNA that may or my not play a role.
 
superluminal said:
No! I have no idea where that fits in??? :confused:


NO! Stop doing that! That "so you're saying" thing. I'm not saying any such thing!

You need to define what you mean by "required". For what? Genes that were "required" may not be "required" in a given environment that changes in some way. We are loaded with "junk" (non-coding) DNA that may or my not play a role.
Click to expand...

Semantics :shrug:

Are they selected for or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top