Darwin's observation that societies that value cooperation and altruism, tend to persist, and that those which do not, tend to disappear.
it's a form of kin selection. We see it in other social animals as well.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Darwin's observation that societies that value cooperation and altruism, tend to persist, and that those which do not, tend to disappear.
it's a form of kin selection. We see it in other social animals as well.
Cross Reference
New member
Nonsense.
The issue is life left to itself.
You are assuming life when there is no life without life.
alwight
New member
noguru
Well-known member
I was not commenting on the origins of life. I was commenting on the origins of species.
Do you accept that what I posted is accurate in regard to biodiversity?
If not, there is no sense in trying to explain the next subject to you.
I know you want to keep your "god" in the gaps of your knowledge. But I tell you my God does not appreciate your sleazy efforts.
My God thinks you are a moron. He does not appreciate you trying to promote your willful ignorance in His name.
You know it would have been a lot more effective if you just went to school, or paid attention in class.
noguru
Well-known member
I just did that. Now I am having French Press coffee, espresso grind.
Wait a minute, lunch? I thought it was 6pm there.
Cross Reference
New member
Jose Fly
New member
Then you'd better tell Stripe and other creationists here. They insist that no population has ever evolved.
Um, think for a second. How do we know they have evolved resistance? Because they are living in an environment that has the antibiotic in it and they don't die, which means being resistant to it makes them better fit than those without resistance (they die).
alwight
New member
Late lunch, got to keep the entropy at bay.
Cross Reference
New member
Jose Fly
New member
Showing once again how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.
Cross Reference
New member
Only love can create. That must "burn' you up.
Barbarian observes:
Well, let's take a look again (6days has been repeatedly reminded that what he posted is a lie, but let's show him again)
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260
That won't save you. Fact is, you have been repeatedly shown that Gould pointed to abundant transitionals. Notice that he says that species to species transitions are not common, and says transitionals at higher taxa are abundant. You've been shown this before, and you knew it was a lie to say that Gould denied that there are transitionals. You have no excuse.
Even honest creationists admit that there are abundant transitionals
No, he didn't say that. He said this:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional
creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
None of this justifies your dishonesty in pretending that Gould said there were no transitional fossils. You have been repeatedly reminded than he did not. Posting a statement by someone else, making the same false claim is no less dishonest than saying it yourself.
Try to do better in the future.
Well, let's take a look again (6days has been repeatedly reminded that what he posted is a lie, but let's show him again)
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260
That won't save you. Fact is, you have been repeatedly shown that Gould pointed to abundant transitionals. Notice that he says that species to species transitions are not common, and says transitionals at higher taxa are abundant. You've been shown this before, and you knew it was a lie to say that Gould denied that there are transitionals. You have no excuse.
Even honest creationists admit that there are abundant transitionals
No, he didn't say that. He said this:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional
creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
None of this justifies your dishonesty in pretending that Gould said there were no transitional fossils. You have been repeatedly reminded than he did not. Posting a statement by someone else, making the same false claim is no less dishonest than saying it yourself.
Try to do better in the future.
noguru
Well-known member
You do not have the slightest idea what love is. You are so entrenched in your own contempt for reality that you cannot see the light.
Darwin agreed with your idea. He suggested that God created life:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1872
alwight
New member
Individuals will die but life goes on, if you check.
Red herring?
Did the sun first do what? :liberals:
When energy drops entropy rises.
The sun is the source of life's energy, see above.
noguru
Well-known member
But you see cross reference is so self absorbed and fixated on his own individual existence that he cannot feel good about others continuing. It would have to be that he, in his individual existence, continues through eternity, if you want him to feel good about it. And reality seems to contradict his wishes in that regard, hence his contempt for reality.
noguru
Well-known member
So in your estimation, all one has to do is recognize the need for a beginning and their methodology automatically becomes accurate from there on in, nothing else is required in a methodology that fosters accuracy?
Are you saying that God cannot be accurate because He is eternal and has no beginning or end?
If you don't know, feel free to say so.
noguru
Well-known member
It's been answered many times for you. But you just ignore the answers. Here it is one more time, since your memory seems to be below par.
The sun supplies the energy through photosynthesis to life. It is not the only way that life gets energy there is chemo synthesis as well. But both inputs have the same effect. Metabolism allows DNA to reproduce, copying errors create novel characteristics in organisms, and the environment chooses those variations that represent a reproductive advantage.
See that was easy.
Oh and by the way, the fact that any individual does not know some knowledge does not mean the knowledge is not out there.
According to your logic, if I went to my local Midas, asked the mechanic about atomic theory, and he did not know. Then I could conclude that there is no such thing as nuclear weaponry.
Energy is not entropy. What you need to do is show how the sun increases DNA's complexity.
- Status