You are asking if I can see something you claim cannot be seen. That’s a contradiction.
You are also referring to ‘guidance’ without saying anything at all about what, when, where, how or by whom that guidance occurs. That’s vague and requires substantiation.
As it happens, there are discernible differences between guided[1] and unguided[2] evolution. One difference is that hybrids between species or subspecies in nature tend to have lower fitness (e.g. mules, ligers), whereas hybrids between subspecies that have been subject to artificial select tend to have higher fitness (e.g. hybrid vigour in domestic dogs and cereal crops).
I am asking if you can understand the differences that guidance would make.
God! who or what else could it be?
So you do not understand what I am getting at. fair enough.
I was not talking about artificially constructed hybrids. Or hybrids at all. I am talking about the basic mechanisms within the evolutionary theory. Starting with the deviations. Can you see how guiding the deviations, instead of unguided (random) deviations would affect the other mechanisms involved in the evolutionary process, specifically Natural Selection and Survival
That’s still vague and lacking substantiation. You haven’t said what guidance, when, where or how.
If you mean ‘mutations’, say ‘mutations’. If you mean ‘variation’, say ‘variation’. If you mean something other than those, you aren’t talking about basic evolutionary mechanisms.
Not without more information on what you mean by ‘deviations’, and more details of when, where and how they are guided.
Why do you not take the post in context with all others instead of stand alone. Why must every post be self sufficient and contain every single variation and exception. All your challenges and queries would be answered if you thought about it, but all you seem to do is remember statements that can be used to your advantage, If that is not quote mining I don’t know what is.
It is pointless continuing this with the way you argue.
“See” also means understand! You just chose the meaning that you can criticise.
I have had enough of you. Perhaps it is time to put you on ignore
As far as I am aware you have never provided any details regarding what, when, where or how these ‘deviations’ are guided. So there is no context to take into account.
You could have provided an example. You chose not to.
It’s not quote-mining.
Quote mining is when some-one quotes part of a single text and replies to it as if the rest of the text doesn’t exist, when even the most cursory examination of the text that hasn’t been quoted shows that the quote blatantly misrepresents the original.
Then you have never read or comprehended anything that I have written. There is only one guider that I would cite. You now it, I know it so…
What about the discussions on whether deviations are Random or not? Or were you so obsessed with definitions that you couldn’t remember the topic or were it mattered. IOW you are so busy being picky, corrective and precise that everything else passes you by. And it is very annoying!
I will stop there before Moderators or others decide I have left the subject or gone too personal.
Whether I put you on ignore will depend on our next encounter.
You still haven’t provided any details regarding what, when, where or how these ‘deviations’ are guided. So there’s still not enough information to generate an answer regarding what effect they’d have.
You haven’t even confirmed what you mean by ‘deviation’ - mutation, variation or something else.
Well I guess this thread is about the correct use of terms…
But I still think that you and he are taking the Michael
(Oops, that might not be the correct term either)
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
140
What do you mean by deviations? Are you talkin about mutations?
Googling ‘deviations in evolution’ leads mostly to discussions of the stellar sequence or other cosmology. There’s also a jargon-filled article reminiscent of Sokal’s hoax, something about industrial complexes, a statistics riff, a Warhammer fan and a dissection of a Lovecraftian horror story.
One refers tot he process, one refers to the result. They are synonymous in the context of evolution.
(And I should not have to say so)
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
145
If you want to have a conversation with people you are going to have to define the terms you are using. That’s all we are asking for. I don’t understand why it would be such a difficult process.
I am not allowed to answer because it comes across as an jnsult.
Suffice it to say, if you believed I knew what I was talking about you would not have to keep clarifying everything or asking puerile questions that make me angry
Richard.
Edit
IMO you should know your theories and the concepts behind them well enough to recognise them whether using scientific language or not.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
147
I don’t see how that is the case. I’m simply asking what you mean by deviations in biology. I suspect you mean mutations, but I just want to make sure.
I’m not a mind reader. I am asking what you mean by certain terms to make sure we are talking about the same thing. That’s it. Nothing more.
Added in edit: The first thing that comes to my mind when someone talks about deviations in evolution is a deviation away from a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium which would indicate positive or negative selection. I doubt that is what you are talking about which is why I am asking you questions.
Yes, good detail for clearly asking. The History for Atheists website covers a wide range of different myths, so general browsing is good. Martin Rudwick’s Earth’s Deep History is a good entry into the history of earth history.
A major difficulty in trying to determine guided versus unguided or detecting evidence of love is knowing what to look for.
Detecting design could be done by comparing a set of known designed and undesigned examples, but we don’t have such examples available for evolution. Design detection can also be done by checking how well a possibly designed object fits the purpose of the design. For example, one early reason for suspicion about the Piltdown finds was that one of the artifacts looked more like a cricket bat carved from a mammoth bone than a useful tool. But we have only a rather limited grasp of what all of God’s purposes are in creation. If we believe that God is at work in natural processes, and believe that He is good and knows what He’s doing, then we will identify those natural processes as examples of design, even if we have difficulty figuring out how a particular example is good.
Both popular music and opera give plenty of evidence that people are not necessarily good judges of what true love is. Maybe they really said “to blave”. God’s goals for us are evidently something much more complex than “a good time was had by all”. Indulging whims rather than providing what is actually best for someone is not a loving approach. But how do we know what is best for us?
