So the sense in which you're talking about evolution has little or nothing to do with 'the theory of evolution' as science pursues it — Wayfarer
which is not to say that it's mistaken or fallacious — Wayfarer
It was popular in the early 20th century but has largely been discredited by modern evolutionary theory, which emphasizes the role of natural selection and random genetic variation in shaping the diversity of life. — Wayfarer
They are pseudo (à la "intelligent design"). :eyes:But you didn't answer my arguments. — Gregory
:up:Because you are not my child to educate. — Vera Mont
:clap:As I noted, you have no understanding of the theory you are arguing against. Nuff said. — T Clark
:100:The OP strings together a series of misunderstandings,producing a view of evolution that has nothing to do with how things actually work. The supposed argument in the OP is from personal incredulity. It's just a bad OP. — Banno
There are many factors involved. Two Neanderthals cant have sex and create the first Homo Sapien. That's not how it works.There is no first member of a species. — Vera Mont
So everytime a change in the species happens it happens with a handful of members at most, because it's random. So why did they survive every time there was a mutation and there was only a few that this happened too. — Gregory
Thanks for the resources. And I recommend Aristotle on form and matter, a good start as well. Science and math serve philosophy, not the other way around. Organisms can't be pulled apart by abstractions — Gregory
f I said I believed in goblins and dragons, you'd laugh. But yet you'd accept aliens? What's the difference? Sounds like science wants to take the mystery out of life. I'm committed to mysticism — Gregory
There is a difference between factoids and wisdom however — Gregory
There is no plausible explanation of why things should get more complex over time. — Andrew4Handel
Things don't tend to spontaneously arrange themselves into useful formations. — Andrew4Handel
For example you break an egg and it never just rearranges itself to a whole egg again. — Andrew4Handel
No organisms developed on Mars, — Hanover
The next question though, is whether it was possible that the primordial mass that constituted the Big Bang could have lacked the components to ever yield life. If the answer is it could, then the only way to assure it was statistically likely it would, would be through the existence of many Big Bangs. — Hanover
This is not known to be true. There is no evidence of biological organisms currently living on Mars, but there is evidence that organic compounds and water are present and have been present for billions of years. It is still possible that life exists on Mars in an area not open to examination or may once have been present in the past when conditions there were different. — T Clark
This is the fine tuning argument for either 1) the multiverse or 2) intelligent design/creationism. It is based on a misunderstanding of how probabilities work. — T Clark
The degrees of freedom model is fairly easy to understands because know from breaking something like a vase or using a jigsaw puzzle breaking things up is much easier than reassembling them. So what force would make things usefully assemble and combat the destructive forces of nature? — Andrew4Handel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.