|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 3, 2009 12:47:07 GMT
Oh, and lots of people believe the earth is falt, god made it in 7 days, etc, because Britain is culturally retarded and has an obsession with hatred of science, and an obsessive love and adoration of stupidity and the arts, a hatred of logical thinking. And therefore the masses are taught by the media and government - almost exclusively populated by law and arts retards - that science is way, way too difficult and done by weird brained boffins in white coats.
And therefore no normal person could understand it.
And it's certainly not worth making the effort to bother trying to understand it. Because it will be way way way too difficult for you, so don't spend 5 minutes thinking through a concept.
Instead believe in the false-egalitarianism that every idea is equal, every subject is equal, every concept is equal, and that whatever half-brained silly idea pops into your head in 2 seconds is of equal value to idea considered and worked out by science over the course of decades or centuries.
Britain is just culturally retarded when it comes to science because our opinion formers all come from anti-science backgrounds and are way too lazy to try and understand it themselves.
Even America and Iran, homes of religious extremism and nutjobbery, still place science as a worthwhile and serious and important thing, to be celebrated and loved and promoted.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 3, 2009 12:51:05 GMT
The mechanism is natural selection. What it selects on is from the chance mutation of genes. But the mutation of genes is something that happens at random because they're imperfect. Yes. And without the chance mutation there would be no natural selection. There would be no change in species. All life would still consist of the simplest single celled organisms. No design. Just chance. Prof Dawkins has said chance plays no part. He is either wrong and doesn't know what he's on about or he's dumbing things down in which case he's a hypocrite, no better than the theologians he criticises. |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 3, 2009 12:52:30 GMT
But the mechanism is not chance. The mechanism is what eliminates chance.
|
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 3, 2009 12:52:57 GMT
*throws in towel*
|
|
yord
New Member
Posts: 14,352 
|
Post by yord on Feb 3, 2009 12:55:29 GMT
The mechanism is chance and chance is not chance but a " real" thing
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 3, 2009 13:00:46 GMT
But the mechanism is not chance. The mechanism is what eliminates chance. The mechanism is chance mutation. Natural selection is the consequence. Without chance mutration there would be no evolution Demonstrate or suggest who created this design you refer to please. |
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 3, 2009 13:02:26 GMT
"Design" meaning "intent". I.e. it's not by chance, it's by design. I cannot explain any clearer than the six times I already did and if you haven't got it by now the chances of me being a good enough educator to get through are very very small.
|
|
yord
New Member
Posts: 14,352
|
Post by yord on Feb 3, 2009 13:05:03 GMT
a mirror of self reflection lmao ?
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 3, 2009 13:06:19 GMT
You clearly misunderstand the meaning of the word mechanism, or at least have a different interpretation of it.
Anyway, the use of the term "chance", which is pretty vague, means that religious types are of the "blind watchmaker" mentality, the "how can you possibly make a watch just by throwing the bits together randomly; it just can't happen, the odds are too small". The language of "chance" is misleading.
We didn't become human by chance. We became human by selection on traits that make us best adapted for reproduction and survival in our environment.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 3, 2009 13:07:26 GMT
I mean, natural selection worked, and was understood to work, long before DNA was discovered, or genetics were known about; even before people started looking at reproduction of fruit flies.
|
|
yord
New Member
Posts: 14,352
|
Post by yord on Feb 3, 2009 13:09:57 GMT
you know nothing of chance or intent and not only am I not a good enough educator but know my capabilities to get that through are non exsistant
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 3, 2009 13:17:24 GMT
"Design" meaning "intent". Whose intent? We didn't become human by chance. We became human by selection on traits that make us best adapted for reproduction and survival in our environment. What caused those traits to change? |
|
yord
New Member
Posts: 14,352
|
Post by yord on Feb 3, 2009 13:27:44 GMT
the intent of knowledge
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,076
Member is Online
|
Post by mids on Feb 3, 2009 13:30:59 GMT
Never thought I'd see the day when Vox argued science. And got it right! :shocked face:
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 3, 2009 13:34:22 GMT
We didn't become human by chance. We became human by selection on traits that make us best adapted for reproduction and survival in our environment. What caused those traits to change? What do you mean by "cause"? Environmental conditions caused the traits to change, I suppose, if you want a stupidly reductive explanation. |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,076
Member is Online
|
Post by mids on Feb 3, 2009 13:39:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 3, 2009 13:41:05 GMT
Environmental conditions caused the traits to change, I suppose, if you want a stupidly reductive explanation. No. That is not correct at all. |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 3, 2009 13:44:48 GMT
Explain what you mean by "cause", then? Humanity evolved because, it appears, a bunch of chimps meandered on to the wrong bit of the rift valley and for some reason (fire? earthquake? whatever) couldn't get back and ended up in a different environment - basically savannah grassland. And in that environment those who were more capable of upright movement and had less impeding tails had a better chance of surviving. Effectively those more suited to land rather than tree-living.
The environment changed and therefore the traits that were best adapted to survival in that environment were different, and the change in environment drove the development of those traits.
Simple, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 3, 2009 13:45:45 GMT
From the survey:
Q3. Atheistic evolution is the idea that evolution makes belief in God
unnecessaryandabsurd.InyouropinionisAtheisticevolution:
What exactly is Atheistic evolution?
|
|
yord
New Member
Posts: 14,352
|
Post by yord on Feb 3, 2009 13:47:22 GMT
Both chance and intent are indifferent, they need enticing. Knowledge and language can exsist independently of each other. Both chance and intent can be enticed by knowledge butnot neccessarily explained with language
|
|
