Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »
From	Message
victoriasas 29-Nov-23, 17:51	<<200 years after the birth of Charles Darwin, his theory of evolution still clashes with the creationist beliefs of some organized religions. For him personally, it meant the end of his belief in creation by God >> Darwin lost his belief in God long before he proposed his crackpot theory. I showed some of the evidence for that in this thread… m.gameknot.com Darwin’s atheism drove his pseudo-science - not the other way around.
victoriasas 03-Dec-23, 08:05	Amazing video on how a species of plant reproduces by attracting and tricking bees. THIS Plant Species Will Make You Believe in God youtu.be Video is 11:13 Hard to see how Neo-Darwinism could possibly explain this (and so many other things.)
stalhandske 03-Dec-23, 21:09	A very interesting video. But why the naive conclusion? And why the statement that 'Science has disproved God', which is simply untrue. The described 'cooperation' between species (here animals with plants) is a very common phenomenon in Nature, and even exemplified on the cellular level. Remember that the distinction animal versus plant is one made by....us in our wish to 'organise' and 'arrange'! Actually, the differences are very small for most functions. For some other, they are much more clear. But so is the difference between a whale and a lion.
victoriasas 03-Dec-23, 21:43	<<The described 'cooperation' between species (here animals with plants) is a very common phenomenon in Nature, and even exemplified on the cellular level. Remember that the distinction animal versus plant is one made by....us in our wish to 'organise' and 'arrange'! Actually, the differences are very small for most functions. For some other, they are much more clear. But so is the difference between a whale and a lion.>> I don’t see how the arrangement of the bee orchid attracting and tricking bees comes about through small gradual changes initiated by random mutations and natural selection. I can’t imagine how Neo-Darwinism explains it, but I also haven’t checked yet to see if such an explanation exists.
stalhandske 03-Dec-23, 22:09	<I can’t imagine how Neo-Darwinism explains it> Why do you persist with this mantra? Is it because you might agree with the amended version of Darwinism?
victoriasas 03-Dec-23, 22:26	What is it? We’ve talked (briefly) in the past about Lamarckism and punctuated equilibrium but I never read how those meshed with Neo-Darwinism in any way other than “evolution could have happened this way too.” I didn’t see how either was actually incorporated into Neo-Darwinism.
stalhandske 03-Dec-23, 23:04	OK, if you decide to forget all those earlier exchanges - fine with me.
victoriasas 04-Dec-23, 00:19	My memory is quite good, stalhandske, but this is usually what you resort to when you’re stumped on substance. “We’ve been over all this before” and “I’ve had enough!” are your typical conversation enders
stalhandske 04-Dec-23, 00:34	<“We’ve been over all this before” and “I’ve had enough!” are your typical conversation enders > Well, I just won't spend all that time again to repeat the work I did before. Just as a single example, do you remember Denis Noble?
victoriasas 04-Dec-23, 01:12	Was he the guy in a single 30-minute video you posted a few months ago? If so, yes I remember. I think he proposed that consciousness arose from biological functions. I don’t remember how he said that happened. Nor do I remember him proposing an evolutionary theory or incorporating any amendments into Neo-Darwinism. In my view, evolution (within a common-sense definition of species) either takes place the way Darwin claimed or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, Darwin and his theory are wrong.
stalhandske 04-Dec-23, 02:14	<In my view, evolution (within a common-sense definition of species) either takes place the way Darwin claimed or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, Darwin and his theory are wrong. > OK, this makes it very clear that it is impossible to have a decent discussion with you on this subject. At least nobody can say I have not tried. You clearly refuse to understand the normal scientific process where a theory is amended on the basis of new data and new understanding. But for all other readers here who have open minds and want to learn how the field develops, here are just two examples: news.asu.edu iai.tv
victoriasas 04-Dec-23, 06:23	Darwin’s theory cannot be unfalsifiable, stalhandske. Where is the evidence that evolution occurs by random variation and natural selection (the way Darwin said it did) or random mutations and natural selection (the Neo-Darwinistic adjustment?) You can’t simply claim the mechanism for evolution is false but the theory remains valid. That’s dishonest and not science.
stalhandske 04-Dec-23, 08:15	<You can’t simply claim the mechanism for evolution is false but the theory remains valid. That’s dishonest and not science.> I don't think you are competent to state that. One final time: The AMENDED theory is quite reasonable and explains observations and facts. The AMENDED theory INCLUDES Darwin's proposals, but makes significant ADDITIONS to it.
victoriasas 04-Dec-23, 08:35	Show the evidence that evolution (within a species) takes place by random mutations and natural selection. I’ve asked for that repeatedly and evolutionists never provide it.
stalhandske 04-Dec-23, 09:30	<Show the evidence that evolution (within a species) takes place by random mutations and natural selection. I’ve asked for that repeatedly and evolutionists never provide it. > How do you explain - for example - how a strain of bacteria acquire resistance to an antibiotic? An act of God?
victoriasas 04-Dec-23, 09:33	Is random mutations and natural selection the only way that can happen?
thumper 04-Dec-23, 09:39	As a young man I generally accepted Darwinism as true based on what was aggressive taught in school. Even then it seemed to me to be a bit far fetched but all the teachers insisted it was true so who was I to disagree? Respect your elders and those in authority is how I was raised. As I matured and acquired more technical and scientific knowledge the ruminations of Darwin seemed more and more to be just conjecture, circular reasoning and wishful thinking. Yes I have a copy of 'On the Origin of Species' and have read it numerous times. During a long career immersed in applied science and cutting edge technology Darwin has been shown to be little more than a promoted world view. During my career I was held moraly, legally and professionally accountable for my actions and decisions. To be truthful and accurate was critical. Darwinian proponents are not held to such exacting standards of accountability. They rely on loudly and smugly claiming that you don't have the mental capacity or intellect to understand much less appreciate their sagacity, knowledge and wisdom; therefore they say you have no standing to even question much less disagree with what they're selling.
thumper 04-Dec-23, 09:54	How can a tiny adult Chihuahua at 1.3 pounds and a huge English Mastiff at 340 pounds be the decendants of a grey wolf? Any ideas?
victoriasas 04-Dec-23, 10:55	<<How can a tiny adult Chihuahua at 1.3 pounds and a huge English Mastiff at 340 pounds be the decendants of a grey wolf? Any ideas?>> I believe the evolutionists’ common rejoinder to any difficult question is, “Anything is possible in billions and billions of years!”
stalhandske 04-Dec-23, 20:31	Vic (although I guess I should not address someone who ignores me) <<<Show the evidence that evolution (within a species) takes place by random mutations and natural selection. I’ve asked for that repeatedly and evolutionists never provide it. >>> <<How do you explain - for example - how a strain of bacteria acquire resistance to an antibiotic? An act of God?>> <Is random mutations and natural selection the only way that can happen? > Well, we can do that experiment (including control experiments) and it will happen within days. In science we would hence conclude that the test experiment is consistent with and thus supports the theory. I wish you would finally understand that the result does NOT mean that this is the only way it can happen! If you believe it happens by some other 'mechanism', you are entirely free to present your own theory. We would then have two competing theories. But in order for such a theory to be acceptable in science it needs to have one more property: it needs to be testable (falsifiable). So, yes, you could of course theorise that the above experimental result was an act of God, but it would no longer be science because there is no way I can disprove it. (Please note: I am NOT saying that it is impossible; but this also bears the key reason for my atheism, which is not a negative attitude!)
stalhandske 04-Dec-23, 20:42	Thumper and Vic <<How can a tiny adult Chihuahua at 1.3 pounds and a huge English Mastiff at 340 pounds be the decendants of a grey wolf? Any ideas?>> <I believe the evolutionists’ common rejoinder to any difficult question is, “Anything is possible in billions and billions of years!” > That all dogs are descendants of the grey wolf is one of the few issues in evolution that is proven. It is indeed amazing (Thumper's question is most relevant!) considering the truly enormous variation in macroscopic anatomy! But these variations can be quite accurately followed historically and there is no need to go back 'billions of years'. I don't now remember the results in detail, but it is certainly all to be found on the Internet - we are talking about a few thousand perhaps a few tens of thousands of years.
stalhandske 04-Dec-23, 20:53	Thumper <to be truthful and accurate was critical. Darwinian proponents are not held to such exacting standards of accountability. They rely on loudly and smugly claiming that you don't have the mental capacity or intellect to understand much less appreciate their sagacity, knowledge and wisdom; therefore they say you have no standing to even question much less disagree with what they're selling.> I am deeply stirred by that comment. Although no doubt there are examples of 'nose in the air evolutionists', your view is actually very far from the truth. I wish I could persuade you of that, but the only way would be to engage yourself in studying at least the major trends in evolution research since Darwin. What also disturbs me is the link some 'best-selling' evolutionists make against religion (Dawkins is a good example), when - as a matter of FACT - there is no discrepancy! It is attitudes of that kind that actually hurt the true science rather than support it. And - like so often - this is done by people with good rhetoric (and an excellent smell for money) but with quite limited excellence in real science!
stalhandske 04-Dec-23, 21:44	Thumper <<How can a tiny adult Chihuahua at 1.3 pounds and a huge English Mastiff at 340 pounds be the decendants of a grey wolf? Any ideas?>> <I believe the evolutionists’ common rejoinder to any difficult question is, “Anything is possible in billions and billions of years!” > That all dogs are descendants of the grey wolf is one of the few issues in evolution that is proven. It is indeed amazing (Thumper's question is most relevant!) considering the truly enormous variation in macroscopic anatomy! But these variations can be quite accurately followed historically and there is no need to go back 'billions of years'. I don't now remember the results in detail, but it is certainly all to be found on the Internet - we are talking about a few thousand perhaps a few tens of thousands of years. Sorry, I forgot to add a crucial comment on the amazing macro-anatomical differences. How should I best relate this? When you go to smaller and smaller entities (smaller than macro-anatomy) you will find that the smaller you go the more similar is the Chihuahua with the English Mastiff. When you get 'down' to the genes the differences are really miniscule! It turns out, in other words, that you can change size and shape of the anatomy with only very small changes in the genetic blueprint. This interesting conclusion is actually also relevant in the discussion of the genetic similarity between chimps and humans. We are VERY simílar genetically - yet quite different, in this case no only anatomically but also with respect to intelligence (at least humans think so  ). The point is the same (albeit a little extended now): relatively small changes in the genetic code can cause "dramatic" changes in what biologists call phenotype.
victoriasas 04-Dec-23, 22:47	<<So, yes, you could of course theorise that the above experimental result was an act of God, but it would no longer be science because there is no way I can disprove it.>> I never theorized that - you did. For someone who doesn’t like words being put in his mouth, you have no problem doing that to other people. <<<Is random mutations and natural selection the only way that can happen?>>> <<Well, we can do that experiment (including control experiments) and it will happen within days. In science we would hence conclude that the test experiment is consistent with and thus supports the theory.>> So how many random mutations does it typically take before a strain of bacteria acquires resistance to an antibiotic?
stalhandske 04-Dec-23, 23:12	<For someone who doesn’t like words being put in his mouth, you have no problem doing that to other people. > Anyone reading this would understand that I was just assuming a possibility as an example. I did not put any words in your mouth. You seem to have great dificulties accepting how wrong you are. YOU brought up an example - I replied to it in a factual and honest way. You just continue with additional questions, which are irrelevant details, in order to confuse other readers.
victoriasas 04-Dec-23, 23:47	Just to be clear, you’re saying a strain of bacteria develops resistance to antibiotics through random mutations and natural selection? Is that right?
stalhandske 05-Dec-23, 00:53	<Just to be clear, you’re saying a strain of bacteria develops resistance to antibiotics through random mutations and natural selection? Is that right? > More unnecessary questions - is this to divert attention (sometimes called trolling)? I thought it was obvious from my response.
victoriasas 05-Dec-23, 08:35	They were both sincere questions, but it seems you’re not interested in having a conversation and that’s fine.
stalhandske 05-Dec-23, 09:50	<They were both sincere questions, but it seems you’re not interested in having a conversation and that’s fine. > I answered to the second question...twice. I have no answer to the first question, which was <So how many random mutations does it typically take before a strain of bacteria acquires resistance to an antibiotic? > because I am not in that field of research. I think it probably varies a lot as some bacteria (and some bacterial strains) exhibit a higher mutational frequency than others. I am pretty sure it also varies depending on which antibiotic (or which chemical more generally) it concerns. That, in turn, depends on which 'method' the bacterium uses to 'detoxify' the chemical (antibiotic).
victoriasas 05-Dec-23, 11:19	Someone posted an article a while back (can’t remember who or where) that said mutations may not be as random as once thought. It’s an interesting idea.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, free online chess games database, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles and more.