Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Mojo]

Internal and not divine direction.

In which case all your objections about the current theory conflicting with religion would apply just as much to your alternative.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Have you ever read what he thinks of, what he writes about religious people, about believers, about Christians? What a JERK, a stupid JERK no less.

Yes, and he is correct! You are dead wrong and .. well ... I'll avoid commenting on your intellect.

 

[IanS]

Sideroxylon,

Do you know about Dawkins and his positions? He is an avowed atheist.

What do you think is wrong with Dawkins, or anyone else, saying they are atheist?

He believes religious people, Christian types are idiots.

You mean Dawkins has said that all Christians are idiots? Where did he say that?

Or has he said something entirely different? Such as saying that some Christians are "idiots" if they deny the discoveries of science (such as denying evolution)?

He ludicrously accuses them of "intolerance".

Same again - are you claiming that Dawkins has said that all Christians are "intollerant"?

Or is the claim something entirely different such as Dawkins saying that certain Chrsitians are intollerant in certain things they do and say?

He is quite an idiot really, Dawkins is.

Well he is an "idiot" who is vastly better qualified to talk about the subject of evolution than you are ... and it was you who raised the subject here .

Regardless, it is far from quote mining in his case. He is MR BLIND WATCHMAKER. Read his stuff, it's garbage, but worth the effort as his views are so mainstream.

What on earth is supposed to be wrong with Dawkins agreeing with what you call the "mainstream" view? You are criticising him for agreeing with the "mainstream" view in evolutionary science. He agrees with the science ... whereas you, as someone seemingly without any relevent qualifications at all in evolutionary research, apparently disagree with what you are calling "mainstream" science.

 

[Patrick1000]

You are a bit late to the party and obviously are not aware of the thread's themes

Let me guess.

You are a bit late to the party and obviously are not aware of the thread's themes abaddon.

I have pointed out that the emergence of living systems on this planet and their "evolution", their changing over time, represent a collection of phenomena infinitely more complex than that of "gravity", objects simply falling.

Given General Relativity's incompatibility with quantum mechanics, and as such, its uncertainty, its failure to explain, how is it that we can expect to understand biologic processes in anything but the most cursory of respects abaddon? This is not child's play, not simple rocket science, not make believe manned excursions to the moon. This is a million times more difficult nut to crack.

We haven't a good model for gravity abaddon, not one consistent with quantum mechanics. What makes you confident we should be able to develop a model for a process so much more complex, LIFE ?

You may well be wrong in your assumption that "scientists" will eventually understand things such as gravity and life itself. That is not to say we should not try, but as pointed out, gravity may well be beyond the ken of human understanding, and if that be the case, understanding LIFE in anything but the most superficial of all senses, is little more than wishful thinking.

People may be better off spending their time pretending men actually went to the moon. At least that is marginally plausible in some nonsensical way.

 

[Dinwar]

And one also notes that correct or incorrect, modern evolutionary theory is atheistic.

This is what we call "a complete and unforgivable fabrication". Modern evolutionary theory says NOTHING about any gods. In fact, Dr. Robbert Bakker is an evangelical preacher (and is also one of those guys who figured out the whole "reptiles to birds" things).

You may not consider yourself a Creationist, but you certainly get a lot of your arguments from them.

You may well be wrong in your assumption that "scientists" will eventually understand things such as gravity and life itself. That is not to say we should not try, but as pointed out, gravity may well be beyond the ken of human understanding, and if that be the case, understanding LIFE in anything but the most superficial of all senses, is little more than wishful thinking.

You know what? If you believe this, GET OUT OF OUR WAY. Stop trying to tell people what we know and how we know it--you demonstrably neither know this information nor care to learn it. And stop pretending to have anything like an interest in the topic--the sheer amount of incorrect information you've presented paints the picture of someone who hasn't bothered to learn the basics. The best argument you've offered for your position so far was to not respond to my link to Jack Horner's talk--at least now you can still pretend to be honest when you say that there's no evidence for the molecular changes involved in the transition from reptiles to birds.

If you honestly don't think science can understand this stuff, don't bother those of us who are trying. Though I have to say, someone who gives up before really trying isn't someone worth much respect.

 

[Dinwar]

Though I did make a conceptual suggestion. Internal and not divine direction.

This is neither conceptual nor scientific. It's mere, baseless speculation. How do you think an organism directs its evolution? Remember, the future hasn't happened yet--what you're proposing is that organisms know what evolutionary pressures they'll face prior to facing them--in other words, precognizance. You're seriously proposing psychic DNA.

 

[Belz...]

He, Dawkins, is an immense idiot, one of the most intolerant of religious bigots currently alive and wasting our air today.

Have you ever read what he thinks of, what he writes about religious people, about believers, about Christians? What a JERK, a stupid JERK no less.

"Waaah Waahh ! My personal belief system is being derided ! Waaah !"

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is not child's play, not simple rocket science, not make believe manned excursions to the moon.

Wait, you don't believe man has stood on the moon, either?

We haven't a good model for gravity abaddon, not one consistent with quantum mechanics. What makes you confident we should be able to develop a model for a process so much more complex, LIFE ?

Well, for a start, life doesn't need to be thought of in such radically different frames of reference as gravity in the macro world and gravity in the quantum world. So there aren't two different concepts to marry up, when it comes to life.

Secondly, the thing about natural selection is that it isn't so much a process as it is simply what happens when you have replication with modification. If you have a whole bunch of things with access to finite resources which are necessary for replication, then those which are better suited to getting those resources are going to be more likely to replicate themselves than those who don't. Make those things lifeforms and the resources nutrition, etc. and you've got natural selection.

If you don't think it true that those better adapted to getting the resources will reproduce more than those who are less well adapted, then can you explain why? If you can't, then you have to admit that it is, in fact, the case. And if you do that, then you're conceding that natural selection does in fact occur.

 

[Mojo]

And if you do that, then you're conceding that natural selection does in fact occur.

I don't think Patrick is claiming that natural selection doesn't happen. He just prefers not to mention it.

 

[Reality Check]

This, evolution and Catholicism being compatible, is of course gobbledygook however. But what are Christians going to do on the other hand? So people, Christians, pretend there is no inconsistency, no incoherence.

You are wrong: The Pope has declared that evolution and Christian faith are compatible. Catholic dogma states that the Pope is always right. Thus evolution and Catholicism are compatible.

What is incompatible are Christians who believe in the Bible literally and science.

These people believe that they were made in the image and likeness of God by a wholly natural, purposeless, undirected, unintentional process.

Pretty dang silly is all I can say.

Pretty , dang ignorant is all I can say: These people believe that they were made (in the image and likeness of God) by a wholly natural, purposeless, directed, (natural selection) and unintentional process.
In that they agree with the actual science.

The silly thing is that 'in the image and likeness of God' part. That is obviously silly if you take it literally since humnan beings vary in image and likeness. It is even dumber if you know that human beings come in 2 genders (God is a hermaphrodite !)

 

[Dinwar]

Wait, you don't believe man has stood on the moon, either?

Patrick1000 has an extensive thread in the Conspiracy Theory subforum arguing that the Moon landing was a hoax. In that thread, he also claims to be a mathematician (while demonstrably screwing up math). This tells you pretty much all you need to know about his credibility.

If there is a God, but you are not his intentional creation, then Christianity does not exist.

This tells you the rest.

Patrick1000: Are you aware of the possibility of Christians being wrong? Many groups have been formed based on ideas that have since been shown to be erroneous, including numerous mystery cults from the time Christianity started. Your logic isn't even internally consistent--by your logic, ALL religions are right, by virtue of the fact that they all exist!

 

[abaddon]

You are a bit late to the party and obviously are not aware of the thread's themes abaddon.

Au contraire. I have followed this from the start. Wrong yet again.

I have pointed out that the emergence of living systems on this planet and their "evolution", their changing over time, represent a collection of phenomena infinitely more complex than that of "gravity", objects simply falling.

You have demonstrated nothing, presented no evidence, and have made unsubstantiated claims.

Given General Relativity's incompatibility with quantum mechanics

Yay, hear those goalposts squeak as they rapidly move.

and as such, its uncertainty, its failure to explain, how is it that we can expect to understand biologic processes in anything but the most cursory of respects abaddon? This is not child's play, not simple rocket science,

You have amply demonstrated how little you understand rocket science, not to mention budgets.

not make believe manned excursions to the moon. This is a million times more difficult nut to crack.

You have yet to provide evidence for this "make believe", and I agree, you are a difficult nut to crack since you simply ignore any and all evidence which counters your delusions.

We haven't a good model for gravity abaddon, not one consistent with quantum mechanics. What makes you confident we should be able to develop a model for a process so much more complex, LIFE ?

What makes you think yours are better?

You may well be wrong in your assumption that "scientists" will eventually understand things such as gravity and life itself.

That is not to say we should not try, but as pointed out, gravity may well be beyond the ken of human understanding, and if that be the case, understanding LIFE in anything but the most superficial of all senses, is little more than wishful thinking.

People may be better off spending their time pretending men actually went to the moon. At least that is marginally plausible in some nonsensical way.

Yup, it's moon hoax appended to a Darwinism thread. Do the words "off topic" mean anything to you?

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Patrick1000 has an extensive thread in the Conspiracy Theory subforum arguing that the Moon landing was a hoax. In that thread, he also claims to be a mathematician (while demonstrably screwing up math). This tells you pretty much all you need to know about his credibility.

And he's getting spanked so hard in that thread his ancestors are probably sore.

Similar to this thread he makes stuff up, deliberately misinterprets things, and then argues that based on those bad conclusions that something else must be true.

If it wasn't so painful to read his stilted and wordy "wall of text" posts, both threads might be actually kind of fun.

 

[Dinwar]

The real problem is, this type of thing undermines legitimate ideas in evolutionary biology. Evo-devo was pushed back decades because no one wanted to touch it after the whole embryo picture scandal, for example. Similarly, there are some interesting concepts in evolutionary biology that, if Patrick1000's views become popular, will be essentially shut down for a generation due to no one wanting to stain their reputation by working on them. To pick a random example, under certain conditions certain bacteria can degrade their DNA repair mechanisms, essentially allowing more mutations and transcription defects. This increases rates of evolution. Why? How does a trait like that evolve? DID it evolve, in the way we understand the word--or is it a byproduct of the way the DNA repair mechanisms operate in those conditions? The problem is, most people wouldn't see the difference between what I've just described and what Patrick1000 described, and scientists are people, meaning that they often react emotionally rather than intellectually (sad but true).

Patrick1000's continued mischaracterization of evolution, and continued refusal to actually look at the data provided, do vastly more harm to evolutionary theory than any good he could think they do.

 

[Dancing David]

Western religion makes no sense unless God made you with intention. Jesus walked the earth because he CARES ABOUT YOU.

And again that is only one of many interpretations of the teachings of jesus, a rather extreme one on the fundamentalist side.

And one of the reasons Jesus/God the Father/God the Holy Spirit cares, perhaps the most important reason as nothing else matters in western religion if this is not true, is that YOU ARE GOD'S INTENTIONAL CREATION.

Again that is only the fundamentalist or baptist interpret ion, I think you will find many methodists, episcopal and presbyterians at odds with that.

If there is a God, but you are not his intentional creation, then Christianity does not exist.

Strawman with another false dichotomy, not even the majority of christians feel that way.

In the world of Christianity Dancing David, you were meant to be. You were most decidedly not created by a purposeless, unintentional, undirected process.

More straw Mr. Tooki Tooki?

 

[Dancing David]

The statement was a rhetorical one. Though I did make a conceptual suggestion. Internal and not divine direction.

Suggestions need more meat to them to be considered theories and that one is highly unlikely.

How is it directed?

 

[Dancing David]

You are a bit late to the party and obviously are not aware of the thread's themes abaddon.

I have pointed out that the emergence of living systems on this planet and their "evolution", their changing over time, represent a collection of phenomena infinitely more complex than that of "gravity", objects simply falling.

Wow, that is a dumb metaphor, have you looked at pictures of galactic interactions, rather spectacular and mostly gravitational.

A new dumb metaphor at that.

Given General Relativity's incompatibility with quantum mechanics,

More wrong, the fact that GUT has not been developed does not mean they are incompatible.

and as such, its uncertainty, its failure to explain, how is it that we can expect to understand biologic processes in anything but the most cursory of respects abaddon? This is not child's play, not simple rocket science, not make believe manned excursions to the moon. This is a million times more difficult nut to crack.

We haven't a good model for gravity abaddon, not one consistent with quantum mechanics. What makes you confident we should be able to develop a model for a process so much more complex, LIFE ?

More argument from personal incredulity and bad comparison.

You may well be wrong in your assumption that "scientists" will eventually understand things such as gravity and life itself. That is not to say we should not try, but as pointed out, gravity may well be beyond the ken of human understanding, and if that be the case, understanding LIFE in anything but the most superficial of all senses, is little more than wishful thinking.

People may be better off spending their time pretending men actually went to the moon. At least that is marginally plausible in some nonsensical way.

Wow, you really haven't a clue...

 

[Robrob]

What is it with wingnuts and "Quantum Mechanics?"

 

[Halfcentaur]

He, Dawkins, is an immense idiot, one of the most intolerant of religious bigots currently alive and wasting our air today.

Have you ever read what he thinks of, what he writes about religious people, about believers, about Christians? What a JERK, a stupid JERK no less.

Yes I have, and it's clear you're ignorant of what he's said and you're spin doctoring it into the worst possible context. Or else you're just knee jerk reacting to what you personally fear he has said. He feels religion over all is dangerous and primitive, but has also acknowledged it's benefits, and has never dismissed the entirety of the religious community as "idiots".

You seem to be projecting you're own bias on those you're suspicious of. Which suggests you fear people are as petty as you are.

There are also many Christians, myself among them when I was a Christian, who have no qualms with the theory of evolution.

 

[Perpetual Student]

This has been posted on JREF sometime before, but for those who have not seen it, have a laugh!


DAWKINS HATE MAIL