• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

What I can't stand about Dawkins isn't his atheism.....

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


DAWKINS HATE MAIL
Click to expand...

What I can't stand about Dawkins isn't his atheism.....I am an atheist. It's the intolerance of religious people. The name calling and so forth. The guy has a serious problem, really does.
 
My way of teasing abaddon. He's out of his element here.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Wait, you don't believe man has stood on the moon, either?



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.
Click to expand...

The reference to the moon is my way of teasing abaddon. He's out of his element here.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Western religion makes no sense unless God made you with intention. Jesus walked the earth because he CARES ABOUT YOU. 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.

If there is a God, but you are not his intentional creation, then Christianity does not exist. In the world of Christianity Dancing David, you were meant to be. You were most decidedly not created by a purposeless, unintentional, undirected process.
Click to expand...


Gives the lie to this


Patrick1000 said:
.....I am an atheist.
Click to expand...





Patrick1000 said:
What I can't stand about Dawkins isn't his atheism.....I am an atheist. It's the intolerance of religious people. The name calling and so forth. The guy has a serious problem, really does.
Click to expand...

Hypocrite

Patrick1000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, Catholic dogma says the pope is not much different from any other bishop, except that he has all that bureaucracy built up around him, and he has the privilege of speaking infallibly ex cathedra, which formality was promulgated in 1850 and last used in 1958. His papal bulls are considered to be "fatherly advice", which can be rewritten by the next pope.

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

That we can agree upon.
 
Patrick1000 said:
What I can't stand about Dawkins isn't his atheism.....I am an atheist. It's the intolerance of religious people. The name calling and so forth. The guy has a serious problem, really does.
Click to expand...
Apparently you have never read any of his books. Is all of your knowledge from fundamentalist web sites? One book that would be very relevant to you would be "The Greatest Show on Earth - The Evidence for Evolution", where he mentions collaboration with Christian authorities such as Bishop Richard Harries.
 
Of course I have read his books

steenkh said:
Apparently you have never read any of his books. Is all of your knowledge from fundamentalist web sites? One book that would be very relevant to you would be "The Greatest Show on Earth - The Evidence for Evolution", where he mentions collaboration with Christian authorities such as Bishop Richard Harries.
Click to expand...

Of course I have read his books. He is sort of essential reading given that he is a spokesperson for the the popular mainstream.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I honestly think if they'd just relax and let there be discussion in schools about the evolution/western religion incompatibility issue, things would be a million times better generally. AND students would understand "evolution" better.
Click to expand...

People are allowed to discuss that in schools and "they" have no objection to that. "They" just don't want something that's not science to be taught as science. Isn't it reasonable that the only thing taught as science should be science?
 
Patrick1000 said:
Of course I have read his books. He is sort of essential reading given that he is a spokesperson for the the popular mainstream.
Click to expand...
But you talk as if you have not read them. In fact, it seems that "The God Delusion" is the only one you have read, and probably only isolated quotes at that.
 
I believe you are misunderstanding what it is that I am claiming might be false

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Okay. Now, what about explaining why those who are better adapted to getting resources reproducing more isn't true?
Click to expand...

I believe you are misunderstanding what it is that I am claiming might be false.

My claim is that there is no good evidence, stuff we can see and study, say fossils or molecular behavior, that supports the mechanism of evolution as conventionally presented.

The specifics of my claim again......

According to most biologists, including evolutionary biologists, and as covered in the textbook material from the high school/college biology book that I reviewed above, evolution's mechanism involves the change of a living system's complement of information(DNA,RNA) over time. Biologists understand the events of evolutionary DNA/RNA change to include;

1) Mutation, the only way wholly new information is introduced and new alleles are formed.

2) crossing over before meiosis

3) independent assortment of maternal and paternal chromosomes prior to meiosis

4) fertilization, where 2 cells with haploid complements of chromosomes form a new diploid cell

5) loss, duplication, transposition of chromosomes or genetic material.....



Keep in mind, early on in the history of life on this planet, before the presumed "evolution" of the capacity for sexual reproduction, only events of type 1) and perhaps some variations on 5) were available to living systems in their changing over the course of time. And, keep in mind only 1) introduces NEW genetic information.

My claim is that we have no empiric evidence at all supporting the mainstream, conventionally presented evolutionary mechanism hypothesis; random/chance mutation, crossing over, reshuffling of chromosomes during meiosis, fertilizations resulting in new diploid combinations from haploid pairs, chromosomal material loss/duplication/transposition, resulted in a hypothetical reptile eventually becoming a bird, and at the same time, that very hypothetical reptilian common ancestor becoming as well the JRandi posters now contributing to these forum threads.

This is my claim. This was/is my challenge to forum members, to produce such evidence.

My claim has absolutely nothing to do with evolution not occurring. It has absolutely nothing to do with in your words, "why those who are better adapted to getting resources reproducing more isn't true?"

Perhaps those better adapted to getting resources do reproduce more. I have no problem with this. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with my claim.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
I believe you are misunderstanding what it is that I am claiming might be false.

My claim is that there is no good evidence, stuff we can see and study, say fossils or molecular behavior, that supports the mechanism of evolution as conventionally presented.

The specifics of my claim again......

According to most biologists, including evolutionary biologists, and as covered in the textbook material from the high school/college biology book that I reviewed above, evolution's mechanism involves the change of a living system's complement of information(DNA,RNA) over time. Biologists understand the events of evolutionary DNA/RNA change to include;

1) Mutation, the only way wholly new information is introduced and new alleles are formed.

2) crossing over before meiosis

3) independent assortment of maternal and paternal chromosomes prior to meiosis

4) fertilization, where 2 cells with haploid complements of chromosomes form a new diploid cell

5) loss, duplication, transposition of chromosomes or genetic material.....



Keep in mind, early on in the history of life on this planet, before the presumed "evolution" of the capacity for sexual reproduction, only events of type 1) and perhaps some variations on 5) were available to living systems in their changing over the course of time. And, keep in mind only 1) introduces NEW genetic information.

My claim is that we have no empiric evidence at all supporting the mainstream, conventionally presented evolutionary mechanism hypothesis; random/chance mutation, crossing over, reshuffling of chromosomes during meiosis, fertilizations resulting in new diploid combinations from haploid pairs, chromosomal material loss/duplication/transposition, resulted in a hypothetical reptile eventually becoming a bird, and at the same time, that very hypothetical reptilian common ancestor becoming as well the JRandi posters now contributing to these forum threads.

This is my claim. This was/is my challenge to forum members, to produce such evidence.

My claim has absolutely nothing to do with evolution not occurring. It has absolutely nothing to do with in your words, "why those who are better adapted to getting resources reproducing more isn't true?"

Perhaps those better adapted to getting resources do reproduce more. I have no problem with this. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with my claim.
Click to expand...

Why don't you demonstrate your understandings of all those Dawkins books you have read by telling us how you imagine he, or any other biologist, might answer this question? You can then add your counter claims of these arguments.
 
I gave a detailed account more than once.

Sideroxylon said:
Why don't you demonstrate your understandings of all those Dawkins books you have read by telling us how you imagine he, or any other biologist, might answer this question? You can then add your counter claims of these arguments.
Click to expand...

I gave a detailed account more than once. Not something I imagined, but gave an account of what was/is written in a mainstream biology text; mutation, crossover, random meiotic distribution of chromosomes between haploid gametes, fertilization, loss/doubling/transposition.

These events change living systems, so we are told, typically the story goes the changes occur very slowly without jumps, no saltations, though the fossil record is not supportive of this. But for the sake of argument, let's even say the fossil record features a COMPLETE complement more or less of species intermediates(which it doesn't), where is the evidence for these types of events in aggregate; mutation, meiosis, fertilization, loss/doubling/transposition, with the corresponding phenotypic changes, slowly accreting over time, leading to a bird from a reptile?

You are asking me for what I am claiming does not exist to begin with. This is the point of my thread Sideroxylon, such evidence does not exist. The proposed mechanism is nothing more than implausible speculation.
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
Why don't you demonstrate your understandings of all those Dawkins books you have read by telling us how you imagine he, or any other biologist, might answer this question? You can then add your counter claims of these arguments.
Click to expand...
Good idea. I support it: Patrick1000 could display that his understanding of evolution is correct, and then he can bring his critique, which will be much more forceful in this way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom