Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of an atheist.
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 241 of 280 (577271)
08-27-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rrhain
08-27-2010 3:36 AM


Rrhain writes:
If they come to their position on their own, why would humans being able to create life chemically make humans the "designer"? It isn't like they are manually adjusting the chemical bonds of the molecules. They aren't grabbing individual atoms and pushing around electrons to create covalent and ionic bonds. Instead, they're just putting chemicals together and letting them react all on their own.
Did Henry Ford design the model T? He just put a bunch of materials together, threw in some gas and there it was, reacting all on it's own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rrhain, posted 08-27-2010 3:36 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Rrhain, posted 08-28-2010 10:38 PM GDR has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 242 of 280 (577274)
08-27-2010 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by GDR
08-27-2010 9:13 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
Why can't it be designed or directed?
Well, how would it be?
That's sort of the problem with the notion of "directed evolution"; evolution doesn't have the levers you need to direct it. You can't program evolution, you can't program environment. Evolution doesn't even happen without random heritable change; the randomness necessary for evolution to occur means that any attempt to insert a "plan" into evolution is bound to fail, because the plan gets degraded, randomly. (And we know that those random events truly are random, at a quantum level, due to Bell's Inequality.)
The early universe - milliseconds after the Big Bang, as far back as we can study - doesn't have the room or the necessary diversity of state to encode enough information to specify even a millionth part of the biological complexity we see today.
The notion of evolution following some kind of specified plan is just a non-starter.
You keep invoking occam has if it's evidence.
Occam's razor, of course, isn't evidence at all; nor is it any sort of physical principle. It's a statement about what forms of inference a given body of evidence supports or doesn't support.
I happen to believe that there is more to this world than we are able to perceive with our 5 senses.
Well, sure. Anybody who works in a science lab has experience with more than they can perceive with their five senses. (We know as well that the human body has more than the five canonical senses - proprioception, temperature, balance, pain, magnetoception, and so on.) In order to detect those things, we construct instruments that relate data to the senses we've got.
If you believe, though, that there's more than we are able to perceive by any conceivable instrumentality I think the burden of evidence is on you for that position - and, of course, given that it is only by our senses that we can know anything at all, it's not entirely clear how you could ever hope to gain any evidence or any accurate idea about something supposedly "beyond our senses." How do you know the difference between REVELATION FROM THE GREAT BEYOND and your own imagination?
If there is a spirtitual or other-dimensional aspect to our existence then there are other possibilities.
From what basis should we even suspect that there is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by GDR, posted 08-27-2010 9:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by GDR, posted 08-27-2010 9:54 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 254 by Rrhain, posted 08-28-2010 11:08 PM crashfrog has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 243 of 280 (577276)
08-27-2010 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by crashfrog
08-27-2010 9:28 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
crashfrog writes:
That's sort of the problem with the notion of "directed evolution"; evolution doesn't have the levers you need to direct it. You can't program evolution, you can't program environment. Evolution doesn't even happen without random heritable change; the randomness necessary for evolution to occur means that any attempt to insert a "plan" into evolution is bound to fail, because the plan gets degraded, randomly. (And we know that those random events truly are random, at a quantum level, due to Bell's Inequality.)
I know that biology is your field and I don't even have what would qualify as a basic understanding of it. However. what I believe to be the case is that evolution happened through a series of genetic mutations. All we know is that they happened. Whether they happened by chance, design, by manipulation or a combination of all of them is another question. People who are expert in your field such as Francis Collins disagree with your position so it can't be that cut and dried.
crashfrog writes:
The early universe - milliseconds after the Big Bang, as far back as we can study - doesn't have the room or the necessary diversity of state to encode enough information to specify even a millionth part of the biological complexity we see today.
It seems to me that would make the case in favour of a designer.
crashfrog writes:
If you believe, though, that there's more than we are able to perceive by any conceivable instrumentality I think the burden of evidence is on you for that position - and, of course, given that it is only by our senses that we can know anything at all, it's not entirely clear how you could ever hope to gain any evidence or any accurate idea about something supposedly "beyond our senses." How do you know the difference between REVELATION FROM THE GREAT BEYOND and your own imagination?
How do we know anything? As Bikerman points out science doesn't prove anything. I have formed my beliefs based on my personal life experiences, observations, study etc. We have all done that and come to our own conclusions. Christianity makes sense of the world that I experience and perceive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 9:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 10:43 PM GDR has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 244 of 280 (577279)
08-27-2010 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by GDR
08-27-2010 9:54 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
However. what I believe to be the case is that evolution happened through a series of genetic mutations. All we know is that they happened. Whether they happened by chance, design, by manipulation or a combination of all of them is another question.
We know that they happened randomly, though.
It seems to me that would make the case in favour of a designer.
Did you misread me? I think you must have, since the point of that information is that it precludes the possibility of a designer. The universe, at that period of time, wasn't big or diverse enough to contain the information involved in a specified plan or design.
How do we know anything? As Bikerman points out science doesn't prove anything.
Science doesn't prove anything according to logic, which I think is the inherent flaw in logic. But according to our inherent reason, science has real, unique, demonstratable power to uncover truths about the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by GDR, posted 08-27-2010 9:54 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by GDR, posted 08-27-2010 10:55 PM crashfrog has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 245 of 280 (577280)
08-27-2010 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by crashfrog
08-27-2010 10:43 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
crashfrog writes:
We know that they happened randomly, though.
We know they happened. Let's say you stiffed the local loan shark for $100.00. As you are running down an alley being chased by the knee breakers you spot a $100.00 bill on the ground. Is that bill there by random chance or was it put there intentionally. Neither case can be proved. Either opinion is valid.
crashfrog writes:
Did you misread me? I think you must have, since the point of that information is that it precludes the possibility of a designer. The universe, at that period of time, wasn't big or diverse enough to contain the information involved in a specified plan or design.
I must be misreading you. It looks to me that if the universe wasn't big or diverse enough to contain the information then the information must have come from something external to the universe.
crashfrog writes:
Science doesn't prove anything according to logic, which I think is the inherent flaw in logic. But according to our inherent reason, science has real, unique, demonstratable power to uncover truths about the real world.
No argument there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 10:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 11:20 PM GDR has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 246 of 280 (577283)
08-27-2010 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by GDR
08-27-2010 10:55 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
We know they happened.
...randomly. We know that. Bell proved that there's no way to resolve quantum mechanics as apparent randomness caused by local hidden variables; that means that quantum events that look random actually are random. There's just no room for God to be manipulating evolution by mutations that seem random but aren't; we know those mutations actually are random.
We know it. Bell's Inequality was experimentally proven.
It looks to me that if the universe wasn't big or diverse enough to contain the information then the information must have come from something external to the universe.
No, the information didn't come at all. There's no way to set up the universe as the ultimate bank shot because the early universe itself isn't large and diverse enough to store God's plan for it.
The universe doesn't need to store any information during that stage if there's no plan to evolution. Which there's not.
So, there were only two possibilities allowing for guided evolution - God either sets it up as the ultimate bank shot in advance (impossible) or God manipulates random mutations along the way (also impossible.) Since we know - know - that neither of those were possible, we know that your notion of divinely-guided evolution cannot be correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by GDR, posted 08-27-2010 10:55 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by GDR, posted 08-27-2010 11:47 PM crashfrog has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 247 of 280 (577290)
08-27-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by crashfrog
08-27-2010 11:20 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
First off let me be clear I can't debate the level of my knowledge of this theorem, so as far as any technical debate goes this is a David and Goliath kind of thing and I ain't got no sling shot.
This is from wiki.
quote:
No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
It seems pretty clear that Bell is talking about a physical theory. I don't see God as being physically defined. I don't see the concept of God supernaturally tinkering in the physical world as part of any physical theory.
Also, Bell published this theory in 1964. You think that if he had absolutely proven that theistic evolution was impossible, as you assert, that there would still be a discussion on the subject involving highly intelligent, highly educated scientists 56 years later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 11:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 1:43 AM GDR has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 248 of 280 (577313)
08-28-2010 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by GDR
08-27-2010 11:47 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
It seems pretty clear that Bell is talking about a physical theory. I don't see God as being physically defined.
No, but we live in the physical universe, don't we? If God is manipulating mutations, those mutations are physical, aren't they?
It doesn't matter what God is, the effects of God's actions as you're proposing them are necessarily physical, because that's the only thing they could be.
You think that if he had absolutely proven that theistic evolution was impossible, as you assert, that there would still be a discussion on the subject involving highly intelligent, highly educated scientists 56 years later.
Columbus proved the world was round in 1492, yet centuries later it's still news to people. I think you overestimate the power of physical evidence and scientific knowledge to settle issues among those who aren't familiar with it, or have a lot to gain by ignoring it.
I mean here you are, desperate to find the out that lets you maintain your faith in spite of the ample evidence against it. I mean is there any scientific evidence I could present that would disprove to you the notion that God is in control of evolution?
Of course not. Why do you think it's any different for anybody else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by GDR, posted 08-27-2010 11:47 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by GDR, posted 08-28-2010 3:13 AM crashfrog has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 249 of 280 (577315)
08-28-2010 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by crashfrog
08-28-2010 1:43 AM


Re: Theology and Imagination
crashfrog writes:
No, but we live in the physical universe, don't we? If God is manipulating mutations, those mutations are physical, aren't they?
Yes and no. Bell's theory referred to a physical theory. A physical theory involves a physical cause for a physical action. If God is manipulating mutations we are talking about a physical mutation but a metaphysical cause.
crashfrog writes:
Columbus proved the world was round in 1492, yet centuries later it's still news to people.
Which people would those be? You must hang around a different crowd than I do.
crashfrog writes:
I think you overestimate the power of physical evidence and scientific knowledge to settle issues among those who aren't familiar with it, or have a lot to gain by ignoring it.
People like Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, John Lennox etc.
crashfrog writes:
I mean here you are, desperate to find the out that lets you maintain your faith in spite of the ample evidence against it. I mean is there any scientific evidence I could present that would disprove to you the notion that God is in control of evolution?
I don't turn to theology to answer scientific questions and I don't turn to science to answer theological questions.
The following is from the wiki site on Carl Sagan
quote:
Sagan, however, denied that he was an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know." In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic."Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe. According to his wife he was not a believer:
When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to meit still sometimes happensand ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl.
I also own and read his book "The Varieties of Scientific Experience - A Personal View of the Search for God". The following is from that book.
quote:
Does trying to understand the universe at all betray a lack of humility? I believe it is true that humility is the only just response in a confrontation with the universe, but not a humility that prevents us from seeking the nature of the universe we are admiring. If we seek that nature, then love can be informed by truth instead of being based on ignorance or self-deception. If a Creator God exists, would He or She or It or whatever the appropriate pronoun is, prefer a kind of sodden blockhead who worships while understanding nothing? Or would He prefer His votaries to admire the real universe in all its intricacy. I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship. My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, then our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, then our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival in an extremely dangerous time. In either case the enterprise of knowledge is consistent surely with science, it should be with religion, and it is essential for the welfare of the human species.
Here is a highly intelligent, highly respected man of science who is not a believer. However he is clear that science does not answer the questions about God.
He is of the same view as I am in that if there is a God such as the one I worship then one of the ways that we can learn about that God is through the study of the laws and nature which He created. I found that paragraph enlightening and there is nothing in it that I disagree with even though I have come to a different conclusion about the Christian God than he did.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 1:43 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 12:43 PM GDR has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 250 of 280 (577367)
08-28-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by GDR
08-27-2010 9:13 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
quote:
The study of evolution is the study of what happened. Why can't it be designed or directed? Occam is just a principle. When you are looking for solutions you should first consider the simplest one. It has nothing to do with what the actual solution is. You keep invoking occam has if it's evidence.
Occam is the best way to select which hypothesis you adopt - I have never known it to be wrong..
As for guided evolution - as I have previously repeated many times - it is not a solution to anything since it doesn't address the issue of who designed the designer.
In scientific terms it is simply a theory in search of a purpose. It is completely unnecessary to existing theory, so why add a needless complication? Sure, I can argue that it is also flawed on many counts* but why bother since the argument itself is redundant?
* a) Directed evolution supposes that we are the endpoint (or if it doesn't then it is useless to the theist who proposes it). This is simply not the case - as can easily be demonstrated by examining genetic evidence
b) Directed evolution presupposes a master geneticist. Why would such a designer build obsolete, redundant and positively harmful code into the DNA molecule? Why build inelegant and flawed solutions when it is possible to do better? Those very flaws are a result of the unguided nature of evolution. This alone defeats the notion. The normal counter is that these deficiencies may be inherent in the solution (ie using DNA at all). That is a nonsense argument for two reasons - firstly we can already improve on the 'design' ourselves in some cases and secondly any sufficiently advanced designer would not select a flawed basis for his creation unless he were a fool, or incapable of better. Either way the crown begins to slip past the ears.
quote:
This is your version of the old condescending Marxist "opiate of the masses" view. What I'm interested in is the truth. I happen to believe that there is more to this world than we are able to perceive with our 5 senses.
Nothing condescending about it. It is the human condition.
quote:
All of that is absolutely true, but only if the materialistic view of the world is correct. If there is a spirtitual or other-dimensional aspect to our existence then there are other possibilities.
What if there are little daffodils growing on Jupiter? Proposing something doesn't make it either valid or sensible. Deal with what we have, not with what you think we might have had. This is just one long appeal to ignorance fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by GDR, posted 08-27-2010 9:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by GDR, posted 08-29-2010 12:22 PM Bikerman has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 251 of 280 (577375)
08-28-2010 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by GDR
08-28-2010 3:13 AM


Re: Theology and Imagination
Bell's theory referred to a physical theory. A physical theory involves a physical cause for a physical action.
A "physical theory" is just a theory that explains something that is happening in the physical world. That necessarily includes mutations and any other putative divine interventions.
Which people would those be?
You've never heard of the Flat Earth Society? I don't think you're aware of the extent to which truly wrong ideas permeate substantially into our society. Aside from the popular wrong stuff - religion, supply-side economics, free-market fundamentalism - there's the stuff you almost can't believe: 10% of Americans believe the moon landing was a hoax, the Flat Earth Society has thousands of members, ghosts and spooks and spectres are so widely believed there are about a dozen shows on TV, now, about real life "ghost hunters." My aunt is in a ghost hunting group, they have jackets and everything.
People like Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, John Lennox etc.
Francis Collins is on the record already as believing that some notions are simply beyond the capacity of science to address, even if it looks like science has addressed them. He's got a lot invested in being the nation's most prominent Christian scientist (not, like, a Christian Scientist) so he's got a lot to lose by accepting what the science pretty clearly says (as, obviously, do you.)
I don't turn to theology to answer scientific questions and I don't turn to science to answer theological questions.
You do when you take what is most properly a scientific question and relegate it to theology. Fundamentally that's the scam being perpetrated by the "non-overlapping magisteria" crowd, that there are some questions about the physical universe that, for some reason, can't be addressed by science.
Nonsense. All questions about phenomena occurring in the physical universe are accessible to science, even the non-repeatable events. If it can be said to have happened, science can address it.
However he is clear that science does not answer the questions about God.
Couldn't Carl Sagan have simply been trying to avoid the public controversy that would surely embroil him if he ever posited a contradiction between science and theism? I mean, Carl Sagan at the time was one of the most prominent scientific unbelievers. The "New Atheism" movement had not yet begun and it was not yet accepted for someone to be an out and out atheist. People were always scrutinizing his statements and work for anti-religion notions with which to attack him.
Anyway, you never answered my question. Is there any scientific evidence I could show you that would diminish your faith in your god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by GDR, posted 08-28-2010 3:13 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Bikerman, posted 08-28-2010 1:37 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 259 by GDR, posted 08-29-2010 5:52 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 252 of 280 (577382)
08-28-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by crashfrog
08-28-2010 12:43 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
I agree with what you have written. I just want to add something on Carl Sagan and what he thought (he is in my pantheon of scientific heros).
Let him say what he thought in his own words:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 12:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 253 of 280 (577461)
08-28-2010 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by GDR
08-27-2010 9:19 PM


GDR responds to me...
...well, no. No, he doesn't. I asked only one question and rather than answer it, he avoided it. Let's try it again, shall we?
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote:
Did Henry Ford design the model T?
No. I mean, that's just a simple question of history. Ford wasn't an engineer. He didn't come up with the idea of the internal combustion engine, he didn't mine any of the iron or refine it into steel, harvest any of the rubber, etc., etc. Hell, he didn't even come up with the idea of the assembly line. And he sure as hell didn't actually make a single car with his own hands. Other people did all that for him.
So now that I have answered your question, will you be kind enough to answer mine?
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by GDR, posted 08-27-2010 9:19 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by GDR, posted 08-29-2010 5:55 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 254 of 280 (577465)
08-28-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by crashfrog
08-27-2010 9:28 PM


Taz writes:
quote:
evolution doesn't have the levers you need to direct it. You can't program evolution, you can't program environment.
Yes, you can. On a large scale, it's called "artificial selection" and it's what breeders do all the time. They engage in selecting which allele expressions get to reproduce for the next generation. And in the case of insemination, we have the ability to select which embryos get to be allowed to progress to maturity.
In fact, selective pressures can be so strong as to direct specific mutations within the genome. At the most primitive level, we must recognize that the genome itself is in an environment and thus, the chemical environment in which it finds itself will affect how it mutates. For example, 5-uracil causes specific kinds of point mutations. And we know that mutations happen in certain areas of the genome more than in others. Again, the physical environment in which the chromosome finds itself has an effect on how it mutates.
quote:
ny attempt to insert a "plan" into evolution is bound to fail, because the plan gets degraded, randomly.
That assumes that you allow non-controlled reproduction. If all reproduction is controlled, then you can most definitely "plan" your evolutionary path.
Personally, I don't see any evidence of any such omnipresent tinkering. It is along the lines of those who claim that evolution is "mathematically impossible" not quite realizing that this necessarily means that god specifically, consciously, and deliberately came down and made sure that every single mating pair was specifically planned, deliberately caused the specific ovum and sperm to join, caused the two to mate at that specific time, in fact controlled the entire thing.
This, of course, leads us to the question that never gets answered:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote:
The notion of evolution following some kind of specified plan is just a non-starter.
Yes, but not because the concept is untenable but rather because it is impractical and unevidenced.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 9:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 11:25 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 255 of 280 (577469)
08-28-2010 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Rrhain
08-28-2010 11:08 PM


On a large scale, it's called "artificial selection" and it's what breeders do all the time.
I guess what I meant was, you can't do it in secret. If you want to do artificial selection you have to be there, selecting for whatever traits you're looking for.
There's no way to have evolution be planned just by having the right "random" things happen.
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
I think there's much evidence, in fact, that things happen on their own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Rrhain, posted 08-28-2010 11:08 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024