The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Atreyu wrote:Sorry, but only a fairly inflexible and simple mind could be satisfied with only those two variables (genetic drift and natural selection) to explain change of species. To be satisfied with only those two variables is akin to assuming that life on Earth serves no cosmic function, and no good philosopher would assume that....Ah personal abuse - in my experience the last refuge of the person who has lost the argument.
Atreyu wrote:Sorry, but only a fairly inflexible and simple mind could be satisfied with only those two variables (genetic drift and natural selection) to explain change of species. To be satisfied with only those two variables is akin to assuming that life on Earth serves no cosmic function, and no good philosopher would assume that....It completely confounds me when I try to understand why people suggest that Evolution implies human life has no purpose.
Atreyu wrote: ...assuming that life on Earth serves no cosmic function, and no good philosopher would assume that....Many very good philosophers assume exactly that. There is no evidence for any so called "cosmic function" just as their is no evidence for spooky nonsense notions such as "élan vital". Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution and if this pisses off certain pissant pseudo-intellectuals and religious nutters then so much the better.
Lagayscienza wrote:No good philosopher would assume such a thing as in philosophy we are not tied to "evidence". Science is not philosophy. In philosophy, we are only tied to our reason. And it's unreasonable to assume no cosmic function for life on Earth. A good philosopher only assumes certain things in certain scenarios, and only temporarily to follow a particular line of thought. No good philosopher assumes anything as a general principle.Atreyu wrote: ...assuming that life on Earth serves no cosmic function, and no good philosopher would assume that....Many very good philosophers assume exactly that. There is no evidence for any so called "cosmic function" just as their is no evidence for spooky nonsense notions such as "élan vital". Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution and if this pisses off certain pissant pseudo-intellectuals and religious nutters then so much the better.
Lagayscienza wrote:Ah, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.Have you ever actually done any?
Have you actually ever read any philosophy?
”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare
”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”
“
1) Cambridge explosion
Darwin saw the Cambridge explosion as proving his theory of evolution to be false
"Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin , C., The Origin of Species
, 1872, pp.316-317.)
now
" No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery."(Eldredge, N.,
The Monkey Business
, 1982, p. 46.)”-at the present time nothing has changed
also Dawkins
" “Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups . And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there,without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists."
(Dawkins, Richard,
The Blind Watchmaker
," 1986, p.229).-nothing has changed to the present
2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
3) ”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population
and causes harmful traits to become more rare
”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”
Seeing bad genes can become common ie breast cancer this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common.
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the Cambrian explosion as it is claimed the generation of new genes is a random process due to radiation, viruses, chemicals etc and genetic cannot account for these process happening as they are out side the scope of genetics physics chaos theory etc may give some explanation but genetics cant
A_Seagull wrote:The point about evolution is that it is the ONLY possibility currently available.This. ^^^^ Absolutely.
If you don't like it, it is probably because you don't understand it. Because it is a very beautiful and elegant theory.
And don't be deluded by the notion that it is 'only a theory'; just about everything that relates to the real world is 'only a theory'. It is just that some theories are better than others. And some theories, such as evolution, are so far ahead of the rest of the field that there are effectively no others in the race.
I am sorry, and I push this following only as my own personal opinion, without trying to influence anyone else to follow my lead, but I am extremely angry with people who advocate the "falsehood" of the evolutionary theory.If you're going to get angry at that you'll end up exhausted. It's possibly the most commonly discussed topic on forums like this. The arguments have been re-stated ad-nauseam. I've been through it myself with various people far too many times.
Dolphin42 wrote: If you're going to get angry at that you'll end up exhausted.Thanks for the advice, but it came just a bit too late. I'm already exhausted. (-:
who did the first bird mate with who did the first dog mate with
an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate with to continue the new species
either
1)there was no one to mate with- so how did the new species B become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together
if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time
the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work
NOW
There is a a dilemma
1)in order to resolve the dean paradox
the dean paradox makes you abandon the word species
in which case biology is destroyed
or
2)biology uses the word bird
signifying it is different from its parent organism
science uses the word species
as such
you have the dean paraodox
in order to resolve the dean paradox
the dean paradox makes you abandon the word species
in which case biology is destroyed
and all this talk in biology about speciation species this species that is meaningless nonsense
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
The colored regime: IMO, in the hypothetical-color[…]
I am talking about "feeling"; sensatio[…]