i see people take positions all day long and i rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.. i read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when i ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, i am often met with silence.. .
Demons? what about fairies? Santa Claus? Perhaps no one gave you the memo but, science limits itself to the empirical.
In his defence, I think his phrase -
....what minimal things would be necessary agencies (daemons) to engineer life into various forms.
is using the greek idea of "Daemons" in a metaphorical way.
From wiki:
"Daemons are characters in Greek mythology, some of whom handled tasks that the gods could not be bothered with"
i see people take positions all day long and i rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.. i read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when i ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, i am often met with silence.. .
inkling got 50% with "Natural Selection"
The simple answer is random mutations and natural selection.
I would like to point out that my first post included:
...the simple idea that ANY variation between specific members of a generation...
"Variation" includes "random mutations", although you are correct that I did not say that by name.
However, it is simplistic and inaccurate to say that "random mutations and natural selection"
is the most parsimonious way of stating the mechanism, because much of the variation that natural
selection works with is NOT from mutations. Much is also from genes being switched on and off,
and genes being shuffled due to the randomly 50/50 nature of gene contribution in sexual
reproduction.
BTW, I've not googled anything.
Maybe you should try.
[inkling]
i see people take positions all day long and i rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.. i read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when i ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, i am often met with silence.. .
Evolutionists can blind you with information...
...and "evidence" and "logic" and "reality"... wait, what were we talking about again?
i see people take positions all day long and i rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.. i read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when i ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, i am often met with silence.. .
don't know the difference between what they know, what they think they know, what they actually know and what can be actually known and their reasons are generally ill-defined, theterms they use in their reasons are ill-defined, and their reasons for selecting to follow one path or another always have bias.
Projection much?
i see people take positions all day long and i rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.. i read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when i ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, i am often met with silence.. .
BTW, I've not googled anything. Everything I've posted comes from the inexaustible font of truth I have within. I simply cannot help but let the waters flow up to impart everlasting life.
Too bad finding that "font of truth" requires your
head to be stuck so very far up you own ass.
[inkling]
i see people take positions all day long and i rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.. i read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when i ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, i am often met with silence.. .
Ok. I'll clarify your thinking.
I'm not quite sure what I experienced after
this sentence, but "clarity" it was not.
[inkling]
i see people take positions all day long and i rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.. i read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when i ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, i am often met with silence.. .
"genetic drift" and "sexual selection" are saying the same thing a bit differently
Uh... yeah, they are so not.
The trait that ends up being sexually selected for may have initially
come from a random and reproductive-neutral trait, but as soon as
the female starts preferring males with that trait, it stops being
reproductively neutral (i.e., stops being genetic drift), and starts
being a trait that is sexually selected for.
So... fail.
[inkling]
i see people take positions all day long and i rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.. i read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when i ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, i am often met with silence.. .
Let's have something more relevant to the discussion instead of insults.
Here here!
Thanks Midget-Sasquatch.
What with the whole Mother Teresa nonsensical "joke"
thread, and now this, I am starting to think GB is being
intentionally obtuse. Someone needs attention maybe? Oh well, at least it has given the rest of us a change to
have an actual, you know, "conversation" involving the
exchange of information and ideas.
[inkling]
i see people take positions all day long and i rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.. i read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when i ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, i am often met with silence.. .
Throttle me too please. I don't know what I am talking about.
I'm just worried you might enjoy it...
i see people take positions all day long and i rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.. i read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when i ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, i am often met with silence.. .
Here's a simplified illustration of genetic drift: A group of people leave their home and sail to another land. They meet with disaster at sea and only half of the people make it to the new land. By coincidence, all the survivors happen to have blue eyes. Therefore, while the proportion of blue eyes relative to other colors was only 50% of the original group, it is now 100% of the surviving group and therefore 100% of the genetic stock that will reproduce at the new land.
Ahh, ok.
So in this case, if you were to imagine a evolutionary biologst
in the future studying these people, if he had to explain everything
via natural selection, he would assume that blue eyes imparted
some survivability advantage in the past, and he would be wrong.
Sometimes shit just happens, and a gene ("good" or "bad") gets
popular by basically winning a lotto rather than "working" their
way up.
Also, if you took the same situation, except all the brown-eyed
people were specifically killed by, say, a racist, then in that case
it WOULDN'T be drift, right? Because even though it only happened
once, blue eyes did in fact increase their survivability.
[inkling]
