@jpm Phil. I find that the4ings have changed since we were in school. The question is this, is it for the better or for the worse? I think that it is definitely for the worse.
Based on what @gavin_kemp wrote, objective reality is subjective, that is based on the observer, and that which is not observed, but what can be reasonably determined, does not exist. In other words science becomes a superficial description of reality, tells us nothing about life. This is the result of separating materialistic methodology from ontology.
I fear that if we allow scientists to define science, they will define it in such away that pleases and makes it easy for themselves, but isolates it from the rest of society and life.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
82
I highly doubt you really know how natural selection actually works, or what Darwin said about it. You seem to have this habit of getting the science wrong and also misrepresenting the views of scientists.
LIKE WHAT???
Mutations happen to be one aspect of nature that is random.
This is yet another example of how you get the most basic concepts wrong. You canât say that metaphysical randomness is both unproveable and false. You have to pick one.
I fear that if we allow doctors to define medicine, they will define it in such away that pleases and makes it easy for themselves, but isolates it from the rest of society and life.
I fear that if we allow chefs to define cookery, they will define it in such away that pleases and makes it easy for themselves, but isolates it from the rest of society and life.
I fear that if we allow airline pilots to define aviation, they will define it in such away that pleases and makes it easy for themselves, but isolates it from the rest of society and life.
Are you saying that natural evolution does not work by the by the changes in the environment, which force biota to either adapt or become extinct.
Variation uses sexual reproduction to create genes that are different in the offspring from those of the parents
What I meant and this is quite true, one cannot prove it is true if it is false. Time is not random, so reality or nature is not metaphysically random.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
85
Thatâs not natural selection. Like I said, I donât think you understand what natural selection is.
That doesnât answer the question. There are mechanisms that cause mutations. Which of these mechanisms do not involve the laws of physics. Please be specific.
First you say that it canât be proven one way or another. Then you say that it is proven to not be metaphysically random. You need to pick one.
I did not say that it canât be be proven one way or the other. I said that the fact that the universe is metaphysically random is not provable is because it is untrue.
I think that you are confusing theory with fact. To say that something is unprovable is a theoretical statement. To say that something is proven to be false is a statement of fact.
Science is about facts, not about theory. I am interested in facts and not theory. They are not the same, so please do not confuse the two.
I know that natural selection is a real fact, which can be scientifically proven, and not a theoretical construct that some people think is true. Just because my understanding does not agree with survival of the fittest does not mean that it is wrong.
Is time random or not?
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
87
Your first sentence contradicts the your second sentence.
We can add theory and fact to the list of things you donât understand.
No, it isnât. To say that something is unprovable is a metaphysical statement, not a theoretical one. Theoretical statements can be tested and can be proven right or wrong.
But you donât know what natural selection is.
If you are proposing something that differs from natural selection as proposed by the scientific consensus then it isnât natural selection.