Evolution - True Or False

[erkel]

humans are chimps

 

[Saquist]

Not well enough.

I am also not constrained by your standards.

"Motivation" is specifically denied as a causal factor in the direction or physical progress of evolution, by Darwinian theory. This is perhaps the single most important difference between Darwinian theory and other proposed explanations of apparent evolutionary change, from a philosophical or logical viewpoint. The exclusion of motivation, purpose, design, etc, is fundamental to Darwinian theory. You do not appear to understand that, and thereby present yourself as completely misunderstanding the logical structure of Darwinian theory.

I understand enough. You may understand more...however words have meanings. If they didn't mean to convey this then they misused the words. Or you misunderstand Darwinian thoery.

The only thing that is sure is that I understand that motivate and drive are synonomous. I may contend attempt to contradict philsophical means but I warn you I'm exceeding resiliant against human meanderings that have no concrete purpose. I've never answered your post becase I've never read your post, or "B" I was unintrested in responding, "C" I don't like posting to several people at once on such a detailed topic, "D" You said nothing worth commenting on.

Such remains mostly the same. In this thread I can not ephasize enough the need for refrences. I am constrained to facts. That being the case...

The following people have stated there interpretations lacking facts.
Spuriousmokey
wiz4rd
Ophilolite

And while Ophilolite did give a refrence he told me to read but did not highlight and area of intrest. To me it sounds like he didn't read it himself but anything is possible. I intend to read.

The rest want to elaborate on "confusion" again with out refrence. Apparently there is a grand understanding I've missed in all my evolutionary studies, a secrect perhaps?

You have not, btw, bothered to handle any of my own observations regarding your actual arguments here, or any of Ophiolite's structural points. You concentrate, instead, on matters of personality or attitude in the argument - as pointed out, earlier.

Flawed. To speak of ther person who has been singled out for personality conflicts and attitude in repeated questions as the person "concentrating" on the issue is nonsense.

If you would like me to ignore your future post you're right on course, for if I have to respond or rebuff your accusation of "concentrating" on personality and attitude when I've clearly been the recipiant of that concentration then the communication schism between us is far more reaching than I'm capable of bridging.

 

[Ophiolite]

In fact scientists still don't have the final answer why we have sex. .

My wife must be a scientist.

 

[(Q)]

Saquist

You made some extraordinary claims of which I asked you to explain, why have you not engaged?

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh c' mon Ophi, your arrogance holds a candle to no one's.

And? Your point? Saquist is perfectly free to identify arrogance in my posts. In the meantime I shall point it out in his posts and those of any other poster who may be blissfully unaware of it.
I cherish my arrogance: it keeps me warm in winter; it provides a guiding light in the darkness; it serves as a form of entertainment for friends and family. All in all it is more useful and valuable than a stuffed ferret, or velvet pajamas.

 

[Ophiolite]

Saquist, this is a brief note to let you know I am still in the chase. Your gross arrogance and rudeness may well be an artifact of translation, though I suspect it is not. If you feel I have talked down to you it is very likley true. I routinely do it to anyone who talks down to me without justification.
From this point forward I shall not be commenting on your absurd posturing but shall deal only with the facts you claim to consider to be so important. If you genuinely seek clarification it shall be provided, but that will require you approach my observations with an open mind.

 

[Saquist]

Saquist

You made some extraordinary claims of which I asked you to explain, why have you not engaged?

Probably because I've been ignoring you too. I can't keep track of all of you and your odd designations. What would you like me to explain? I honestly do not recall you as part of the discussion for quite sometime.

P.S
I tend to focus on one individual at a time.

 

[(Q)]

Probably because I've been ignoring you too. I can't keep track of all of you and your odd designations. What would you like me to explain? I honestly do not recall you as part of the discussion for quite sometime.

P.S
I tend to focus on one individual at a time.

I suspect you only tend to focus on your extraordinary claims and ignore those who question them. It was only yesterday.

Are you so lazy to click back a page or two on this thread and read my questions?

Or, is it such that you realized there is no possible way for you to answer to your extraordinary claims simply because they are so far-fetched, one must appeal to magic?

 

[Saquist]

If you say I'm Lazy and believe in magic then it must be so.

As a result I'll follow your expectation and I find I can't muster the necessary motivation to regress to the previous page and hence on I'll give your answers in terms you understand, which you've stated is "magic"

So the answer to your question...(whatever it was) is "magic"

I hope this satisfies you question and your expectations as you have related them.

 

[(Q)]

If you say I'm Lazy and believe in magic then it must be so.

As a result I'll follow your expectation and I find I can't muster the necessary motivation to regress to the previous page and hence on I'll give your answers in terms you understand, which you've stated is "magic"

So the answer to your question...(whatever it was) is "magic"

I hope this satisfies you question and your expectations as you have related them.

Of course, I expected no less and see no other possible explanation to your wild claims. At least, I now know your worldview is ruled by magical thinking. Clearly, any further discussion would be pointless as your only response would be to appeal to the imaginative. Thanks.

 

[Saquist]

You're "magicaly" welcome....

 

[iceaura]

I understand enough. You may understand more...however words have meanings. If they didn't mean to convey this then they misused the words.

"They" misused the words. "They" - the example I quoted from you - are not scientists in the field.

The rest want to elaborate on "confusion" again with out refrence. Apparently there is a grand understanding I've missed in all my evolutionary studies, a secrect perhaps?

Not a secret - a fairly simple and direct set of factors that several people have been trying to get you to pay attention to on this thread, supplying you with plenty of "referemce". You have been ignoring all content, and focusing on:

but I warn you I'm exceeding resiliant against human meanderings that have no concrete purpose.

Your resilience consists in refusing to consider the concrete in any of the responses on this thread, from me or anyone.

Now, on topic:

for if I have to respond or rebuff your accusation of "concentrating" on personality and attitude when I've clearly been the recipiant of that concentration

You have, from me, been handed several content-intensive observations on the logical structure and factual implications of your misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution. You have yet to respond to any of them, responding instead - only - to my comment on that failure. Which illustates my point.

Are you honestly debating anything relevant to Darwinian evolution? It does not appear so. But here is another opportunity:

The only thing that is sure is that I understand that motivate and drive are synonomous.

Well, the only thing you understand is false as well as irrelevant. Try any good dictionary. Or try to talk about "motivating" a car, golf ball, speaker system, etc.

Let's drop that, and go back to basics: the people who best know what evolutionary theory states are evolutionary theorists, right? So the first thing to do is get your vocabulary and assumptions to agree with theirs, in your description of their theory. Until then you are describing something else, not evolutionary theory. That means leaving out "motivate": nothing "motivates" evolutionary change, according to the pros.

Now:

And observation is the foundation for fingerpainting. The fingerpainter makes observations about the environment, just as the Bible and the scientist do.
- -
And I am not sure what you meant by science not asking scientific questions, but providing scientific answers - we have questions, observations, deductions, inductions, conclusions - none of them are "scientific" as an inherent property. The science is in their relationship, and that is where the Bible differs.

Response?

 

[Saquist]

"They" misused the words. "They" - the example I quoted from you - are not scientists in the field. Not a secret - a fairly simple and direct set of factors that several people have been trying to get you to pay attention to on this thread, supplying you with plenty of "referemce". You have been ignoring all content, and focusing on: Your resilience consists in refusing to consider the concrete in any of the responses on this thread, from me or anyone.

yada yada yada....scientific: no but a good summary of what you said.

Now, on topic: You have, from me, been handed several content-intensive observations on the logical structure and factual implications of your misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution. You have yet to respond to any of them, responding instead - only - to my comment on that failure. Which illustates my point.

I saw nothing of relevance. Now I'm the unfocused type so feel free to repeat those "refrences" that I'm sure were merely word of mouth.

Well, the only thing you understand is false as well as irrelevant. Try any good dictionary. Or try to talk about "motivating" a car, golf ball, speaker system, etc.

Let's drop that, and go back to basics:

Why...
We spent a massive amount of time on it. Can I conclude that you wish to be right and would like to move on without consulting said dictionary that you site as "good."

There's no pleasing you...

the people who best know what evolutionary theory states are evolutionary theorists, right? So the first thing to do is get your vocabulary and assumptions to agree with theirs, in your description of their theory. Until then you are describing something else, not evolutionary theory. That means leaving out "motivate": nothing "motivates" evolutionary change, according to the pros.

Now: Response?

Get cracking on those questions that Ophilolite abandoned. Without a teacher I can't learn...

 

[Ophiolite]

Get cracking on those questions that Ophilolite abandoned. Without a teacher I can't learn...

As noted earlier, would you be good enough to restate the questions, making all possible effort to be as clear as possible what you are asking? While your English is fluent it is not always intelligible. I have not abandoned the questions. I merely do not grasp what you are asking. (Please do not include in your response some remarks about my comprehension skills. Let us stick to the topic.)

 

[Saquist]

I have no desire persecute those for what may be and usually is my lack of good communication skills Ophilolite.

Explain: what is the primary motivator of evolution.
Explain: Explain the complete totality of evolution in your own words.
Explain: What functions of biology are not evolution.

Do you best here. I'm not looking for a smart-alec-answer. This will impact further questions. Take you time. But it answered.
Explain: From what stage in creature development does evolution begin.

Has adaptation been observed to change on species into a completely different species?

Of the mutations that are passed off to offspring how many have been known to redefine the creature.

When was natural selection observed to have altered a species from on species to another?

What is mutation?
When has mutation altered another speices to another speices.

Is Genetic Engineering Evolution why or why not.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I have no desire persecute those for what may be and usually is my lack of good communication skills Ophilolite.

That's definitely not intelligible.

 

[Ophiolite]

No. That one actually is. I had asked him not to respond with some personal remarks claiming I couldn't find my arse with both hands in a lighted room. or any meaning in his eloquent sentences.
Instead he remarks that he isn't going to blame anyone for what are failings in his own communication skills. I tho8ught this was both intelligible, polite, helpful and relevant.

 

[Ophiolite]

Saquist I shall attempt to answer all of your questions, but shall do so one at a time. We shall, if you are agreeable, discuss each in turn until we canmake no more progress.

The first question:
Explain: what is the primary motivator of evolution.

I thought we had adequately addressed this. There is no motivator in evolution. (I am not going to get into discussions surrounding the Strong Anthropic Principle. If you want to talk about that highly speculative field you should start a new thread.) Biologists do not generally refere to an evolutionary motivator and when they do they are typically abusing, or misapplying the word.
If you meant by this question what 'drives' evolution, in other words, what makes it work, then tell me now and I shall answer that question also.

 

[Saquist]

I have no desire to debate semantics.

Question rephrased:

"Explain the driving Forces of evolution and single out the primary driving force."

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Should there be a 'driving force'?