Is the darwinian theory absolute or/and fact (if I may use that word)?

[firedragon]

Lucky I was not replacing the word "pseudo-science" with "intelligent design" then.

What I was hoping to convey is that intelligent design is pseudo-science.

Not that Neutral drift, Punctuated Equilibria, cross species genetic transfer, and other extra-selection mechanisms are pseudoscience.

Thats not what you said. I will cut and paste what you said. And of course, this will be the last post on this matter.

"If a person speaks of biological evolution but does not mean "the Darwinian mechanism" (I assume this is a reference to natural selection) then it looks to me like they are speaking pseudo-science."

Post #5

Have a great day.

 

[danieldemol]

Thats absolutely wrong.

The darwinian theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It is not fact. Science does not work that way.

Biological evolution is a fact. Its observed right now, today. Its indisputable.

According to my understanding biological evolution is a theory;

'In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.

• The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species? are related and gradually change over time.
• Evolution relies on there being genetic variation? in a population which affects the physical characteristics (phenotype) of an organism.
• Some of these characteristics may give the individual an advantage over other individuals which they can then pass on to their offspring.'

Source: What is evolution?

I would dare assert that natural selection has also been observed.

 

[danieldemol]

Thats not what you said. I will cut and paste what you said. And of course, this will be the last post on this matter.

"If a person speaks of biological evolution but does not mean "the Darwinian mechanism" (I assume this is a reference to natural selection) then it looks to me like they are speaking pseudo-science."

Post #5

Have a great day.

Yes, and as explained in post #113 I did not have those other things *Neutral drift, Punctuated Equilibria, cross species genetic transfer, and other extra-selection mechanisms* in mind when I said that, I was reminded of those things by Polymath257.

 

[firedragon]

According to my understanding biological evolution is a theory;

'In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.

• The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species? are related and gradually change over time.
• Evolution relies on there being genetic variation? in a population which affects the physical characteristics (phenotype) of an organism.
• Some of these characteristics may give the individual an advantage over other individuals which they can then pass on to their offspring.'

Source: What is evolution?

I would dare assert that natural selection has also been observed.

Natural selection is of course a valid scientific theory, and its backed by observable evidence, but it's still debated even today.

Evolution is not.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, and as explained in post #113 I did not have those other things *Neutral drift, Punctuated Equilibria, cross species genetic transfer, and other extra-selection mechanisms* in mind when I said that, I was reminded of those things by Polymath257.

I know you changed it. I know. You called everything else pseudo science then changed it to Intelligent design and now you are making some other thing. Sorry Daniel. I can't engage with this.

 

[danieldemol]

I know you changed it. I know. You called everything else pseudo science then changed it to Intelligent design and now you are making some other thing. Sorry Daniel. I can't engage with this.

What "other thing" am I making it? I can assure you that I had in mind intelligent design from the beginning. You are making a grand fuss about me mis-speaking, but I'm human so its ok to do that (Just the same as it is ok for you to say it was your last post on the matter then make another post lol) People misspeak sometimes.

 

[rational experiences]

Who doesn't say anything.

Anything not a human.

Quotes self notice.... human egotism no need for its expression.

Then you review the male group.

God evolutionists arguing against theist evolutionists.

Argument human. For human advice.

God concept babies form instantly inside mother human womb due to presence of God. It's heavens existing a teaching.

God in science one gas of anything named plus it's presence as mass.

As no human speaks on behalf of how much or how less an atmospheric mass owns or holds.

Science medical reason would say gases not present as cold form is present would be because hot radiation ignited it and burnt it out. Gone.

Reason vacuum voids burning one way only...out. natural light.

Genesis reason against science practice said burning God as a spirit a cold gas removed genesis. Genetics.

Mass accumulation of gases cold put God back in heavens so that a female ovary now could be inseminated with a healthy returned firstborn. A baby.

A man in science adult the father yet not the baby so he is not the babies father. Conscious medical advice.

Reason. A baby son forms grows into his owned man adult body. Becomes the father personally.

Conscious identification not consciously misquoting ownership in word usage. Careful about the word usage and what one man human was stating about one man yet not being owner of the living status he was reviewing.

Factually.

If gods spirit had not returned accumulated Jesus would be the baby boy. A sacrificed baby would not be born.

The reference medical sacrifice genetics man life bio body bones unnaturally leeching perfumed chemicals and blood as bio chemistry mutated.

Know self scientific male story told being bodily hurt sacrificed..... an adult man male. Not yet a father in his own life.

So said his father the scientist had caused it not allowing his genetic baby life to continue. As a healthy human with human rights.

Teaching why the human first life healthy complete body first was sacrificed.

So if humans living monkey type life had sex God conditions gas mass replaced accumulated allowed a healthy human baby to be reborn as it's first healthy returned human form.

Reason. Humans living after all forms were owned healthy first reinvented science.

Science the thesis from nothing nothing is returned. Equals equals equals. Three holy advice.

First advice how to remove a calculated addition false add the cross +. So the cross sacrificed life as humans never owned natural mass itself they lived supported by natural mass first.

A human teaching about the human theist in science.

A monkey human who had sex changed the baby form inside their own womb.

As if a monkey only a mutated sick baby monkey would return to a healthy baby monkey.

The story is a monkey mutated human life body after old science practiced rebirthed a healthy human baby by God mass gas replacement.

Actually.

As the study against ancient science and it's evil human theories.

A channel one only for one condition the theory a hot gas is a hit gas channel.
A cold gas is a cold gas channel two different gas masses

A cold gas is cold on both sides. A hit gas cold one side only. Out is hot side.

Ground God owned by science owns no gases it is a planet of stone mass.

Don't be fooled by an occult theist human is our human teaching. They lie.

 

[danieldemol]

Natural selection is of course a valid scientific theory, and its backed by observable evidence, but it's still debated even today.

Evolution is not.

Who is natural selection debated by? Biological Evolution is debated by some people also. in my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

What "other thing" am I making it? I can assure you that I had in mind intelligent design from the beginning. You are making a grand fuss about me mis-speaking, but I'm human so its ok to do that (Just the same as it is ok for you to say it was your last post on the matter then make another post lol) People misspeak sometimes.

Alright.

 

[firedragon]

Who is natural selection debated by? Biological Evolution is debated by some people also. in my opinion.

I think you want to steer this thread into your own topic of proving darwinian evolution. Please open another thread for that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So since its easy, you can say what you like. Have a great day.

You have a great day too. Toodles.

 

[atanu]

I agree that the evidence of paleontology are facts explained by the theory and natural selection is the main explanation driving change in populations. Epigenetics is change in the packaging of DNA that is heritable, but I do not know what plasticity of brain means or what you mean by 'will' in relation to the theory.

Horizontal gene transfer is a mechanism of genetic diversity that can be acted on by selection mechanisms. It may impact the mode of evolution, but has a bigger role in clouding our understanding of common descent near the base of life.

Death, suffering, competing against each other etc. etc. are natural. The three needs theory of McClelland: the needs for achievement, affiliation, or power, summarises it beautifully, imo. But trying to fulfil these needs brings us to pain and suffering.

And here comes in the pre-natural knowledge (if you can call it that). Buddha teaches the antidote to suffering. Christ taught to love neighbour as oneself — this is so non intuitive. Hindus say that death is of names-forms only and that the universe appears and disappears cyclically in Mind at large.

Forget the Hindu views.

Let us just look into Buddha and Christ. They are teaching something that is not obvious in nature. And millions have improved their physical and mental states by adhering to their teachings. So, saying that all processes are that which are visible through mind-senses ONLY is an erroneous philosophical stand. It cannot be the final stand of science, which employs naturalism as a method and not as an ontological truth.

Even empirically we see that the universe is FUNDAMENTALLY constituted of experiences and efforts to refine and enhance those experiences. Art, culture, science, economics, tasting, touching, love making, music — all are testimony to that.

Many scientists and philosophers have suggested that monism can bridge religion and science.
…

 

[firedragon]

You have a great day too. Toodles.

Toodles? Thats a first for me. I dont know why that brought in childhood reading of classics into my mind.

 

[PruePhillip]

The genes that confer lactase persistence have been identified. There are more than one. They are spreading, because they confer a fitness advantage in allowing access to a nutrition source that is unavailable to those that do not have the trait. It can be explained by the theory.

I accept your point, but it won't work here
Imagine two kids in China, one only is lactose tolerant, child A.
Child A has access to nutrition child B doesn't have - milk.
But in a modern high calory world that doesn't matter, Child B
can have yoghurt, cheese, chocolate, almond or soya milk etc..
Not to menion all the rich non-milk products.
But lactase persistence is still spreading.
So too is the morphology of the human skull.

 

[PruePhillip]

Marx, although a materialist, did not ascribe to the determinism part of it. He held that interaction of mankind with factors of society cause change. I think he was correct.
…

Society has nothing to do with this - God deals with the individual.
We are not Marxist ants.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Toodles? Thats a first for me. I dont know why that brought in childhood reading of classics into my mind.

Watch out for toodle pip too - not that you might see this so often.

slang - The usage of “toodle pip” - English Language Learners Stack Exchange

 

[firedragon]

Watch out for toodle pip too - not that you might see this so often.

slang - The usage of “toodle pip” - English Language Learners Stack Exchange

Haha. What an awesome idea to reminisce. Thanks. I have never used this, nor have I seen them in use. They are so old but so awesome. Not to these young ones though. One guy was laughing at me for saying "video tape".

 

[atanu]

Society has nothing to do with this - God deals with the individual.
We are not Marxist ants.

No, I do not think so. Marxists are not ants. On the other hand, some people claiming religiosity have an antlike mentality.

 

[firedragon]

No, I do not think so. Marxists are not ants. On the other hand, some people claiming religiosity have an antlike mentality.

Spoken like a truly dogmatic tribes-person.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, I do not think so. Marxists are not ants. On the other hand, some people claiming religiosity have an antlike mentality.

No, Judea Christian religion deals with the private. Marxism deals with collectives.
Ever closely observed Cultural Marxists? One writes a book on some new topic of
outrage and millions, lock-step, follow the dogma.