Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,197 Year: 5,454/9,624 Month: 479/323 Week: 119/204 Day: 19/16 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   morality, charity according to evolution
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 156 of 243 (313303)
05-18-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Hyroglyphx
05-18-2006 6:52 PM


Re: Glossing over the obvious
quote:
There is certainly evidence? This was one case study that may or may not be fruitful to prove anything beyond an anamole. And again, this indicates that nature somehow 'knows' brother is going to be gay, so that nature can tell sister that she needs to crank out some extra kids for him.
I think that what he means to say is that when females get the same genes that bring about homosexuality in males, they get improved fertility. If a female with these genes has offspring, then her offspring gets these genes - and those female offspring will have improved fertility, but the males will have an increased chance of becoming homosexuality. Make sense? I hope I got that right

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-18-2006 6:52 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-19-2006 2:22 PM Alasdair has not replied

  
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 194 of 243 (314922)
05-24-2006 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Hyroglyphx
05-23-2006 10:08 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
quote:
I would agree that we don't have to see things in order for 'things' to be real. For instance, we don't see gravity and we don't see wind. However, we do see their effects quite clearly. I can't see the wind but I can see it manifest itself when it blows through the trees. If macroevloution were legitimate, then we should expect to see some type of evidence. Unfortunately, there is none.
http://EvC Forum: What's not Macro about Chlorella v? -->EvC Forum: What's not Macro about Chlorella v?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-23-2006 10:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-24-2006 4:52 PM Alasdair has not replied

  
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 201 of 243 (315035)
05-24-2006 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Hyroglyphx
05-24-2006 11:13 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
So instead of responding to what he presented as a case for macroevolution, you just copy pasted a bunch of quote mines? Come on, give me a break.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2006 11:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:23 AM Alasdair has replied

  
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 213 of 243 (315105)
05-25-2006 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 12:23 AM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
Maybe you can engage us with something more than quote mines. Those are eminent evolutionists, eh? Did you actually read what they said?
quote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." -Newton Tahmisian
Yep, he sure sounds like one.
quote:
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief." -Nils Heribert-Nilsson
So does he.
quote:
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." -Stephen Jay Gould
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." -Stephan J Gould
Including this is just plain dishonest. If you know anything about what you're talking about, you'd know that Gould (the only name I recognised on this list) is talking about gradual evolution vs punctuated equilibrium.
The first quote is from this paper:
quote:
" 2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features -- a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating new models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design -- the building of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pp. 126-127)
I've gotta go to class, ciao.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:23 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:02 PM Alasdair 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