Resistance to evolution

[Chas]

There are clearly at least two layers of understanding evolutionary theory.

First is understanding what the theory says and doesn't say.
Then there is the understanding of the evidence.

But if you stick your fingers in your ears and go "la, la, la, la, ..." then your understanding will be lessened.

And it is not rational to do that; it is an emotional response to not wanting to hear that you're not special.

[lucradis]

I couldn't hear you with my fingers in my ears Chas.

[I and I]

(28-10-2012 02:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(28-10-2012 02:02 PM)I and I Wrote:  The idea that there is a "grand meaning" to life in general is what evolution challenges, however the evolutionists have mistakenly fallen into this trap a little.

Evolution implies that there is a trajectory from less complex to more complex, when what is called complex or not complex is simply a subjective human opinion.

The bourgeois liberals have also contradicted evolution in falsely claiming that life or habitats are part of an "eco-system" that somehow levels itself out as long as we dirty bird humans keep our hands out of it. According to this view, nature is static and maintains itself at an optimum level when left alone, this view clearly contradicts evolution.

No, evolution does not posit a trajectory from less to more complex. There are no goals in evolution, no foresight; there is only selection.

I don't think eco-system is a 'bourgeois liberal' term, merely a view of the natural world at a level higher than species selection.

The idea of an eco-system is based on the false idea that nature on it's own can maintain a habitable place for different species, this is not entirely true because the whole idea of evolution is change, sometimes this change is slow and sometimes this change is fast as in a natural catastrophe, there is no system where all species fit and balances out.

The idea of selection is an old way but not a good way of saying the right thing. There is no selection involved and no trajectory. We humans when studying nature have to categorize and simplify processes and sometimes the words we use can wrongly carry too much weight in describing evolution, there is no "selecting" going on but there aren't that many words or phrases that would sound better though.

[houseofcantor]

I and I: and ... that's what I got.

[Bucky Ball]

(28-10-2012 07:46 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I and I: and ... that's what I got.

Just the usual drivel.
Don't waste your time even trying to figure it out.
It's meaningless.

[I and I]

(28-10-2012 07:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(28-10-2012 07:46 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I and I: and ... that's what I got.

Just the usual drivel.
Don't waste your time even trying to figure it out.
It's meaningless.

and you are going to show us evolution is based on "selection" somehow?

or are you going to not read what I wrote and just claim I am arguing against evolution?

[fstratzero]

(28-10-2012 07:58 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(28-10-2012 07:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Just the usual drivel.
Don't waste your time even trying to figure it out.
It's meaningless.

and you are going to show us evolution is based on "selection" somehow?

or are you going to not read what I wrote and just claim I am arguing against evolution?

The selection for or against traits is done by the environment by which the organism lives.

[fstratzero]

(28-10-2012 07:32 PM)I and I Wrote:  The idea of an eco-system is based on the false idea that nature on it's own can maintain a habitable place for different species, this is not entirely true because the whole idea of evolution is change, sometimes this change is slow and sometimes this change is fast as in a natural catastrophe, there is no system where all species fit and balances out.

The word ecosystem is shorthand for a community of living organisms (plants, animals and microbes) in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment (things like air, water and mineral soil), interacting as a system.

(28-10-2012 07:32 PM)I and I Wrote:  The idea of selection is an old way but not a good way of saying the right thing. There is no selection involved and no trajectory. We humans when studying nature have to categorize and simplify processes and sometimes the words we use can wrongly carry too much weight in describing evolution, there is no "selecting" going on but there aren't that many words or phrases that would sound better though.

We humans form resemblance of things in reality in our minds. By breaking down these resemblances in smaller parts we can use them to create a larger idea. The opposite is also true, by having big ideas we can use those and compare them to the smaller ideas.

We use the word selection to describe the way in which a favorable trait is beneficial to the species at hand in relationship to predators, prey, and environment.

[I and I]

(28-10-2012 08:50 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  

(28-10-2012 07:58 PM)I and I Wrote:  and you are going to show us evolution is based on "selection" somehow?

or are you going to not read what I wrote and just claim I am arguing against evolution?

The selection for or against traits is done by the environment by which the organism lives.

that isn't a false statement, however if the environment is the beginning triggering factor one would run into the problem of what triggered before x and before x etc etc.

The ideological implications of that kind of explanation means that change is not something that we are in control of. When we humans or any other animal are going about our daily lives we are purposely making changes or making changes without knowing it. The idea of a social or environment deterministic notion disregards the notion of purposeful change that humans can make on ourselves and the world around us, for example: capitalism is not natural, we can overthrow the people in power and create a better system. So yes your statement is not wrong but it's not completely correct either.

The world is changed by and changes species.

[Phaedrus]

(28-10-2012 09:19 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(28-10-2012 08:50 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  The selection for or against traits is done by the environment by which the organism lives.

that isn't a false statement, however if the environment is the beginning triggering factor one would run into the problem of what triggered before x and before x etc etc.

The ideological implications of that kind of explanation means that change is not something that we are in control of. When we humans or any other animal are going about our daily lives we are purposely making changes or making changes without knowing it. The idea of a social or environment deterministic notion disregards the notion of purposeful change that humans can make on ourselves and the world around us, for example: capitalism is not natural, we can overthrow the people in power and create a better system. So yes your statement is not wrong but it's not completely correct either.

The world is changed by and changes species.

I don't want you to think that the following video link is in jest, or that I'm trolling you or dismissing you without reading the post. I read your post three times, and the following video is the best summation of my feelings that I could find. Please consider the following words carefully.