Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
Further, should we take Darwin metaphorically on an assertion upon which the validity of natural selection rests?
This goes back to Darwin. He had to postulate various scenarios about natural selection acting on ant-colonies rather than on individual ants, in order to produce some kind of barely-believable response to his critics. See here and here.
tsela` (tsay-law’); or (feminine) tsal` ah (tsal-aw’); from OT:6760; a rib (as curved), literally (of the body) or figuratively (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side, literally (of a person) or figuratively (of an object or the sky, i.e. quarter); architecturally, a (especially floor or ceiling) timber or plank (single or collective, i.e. a flooring):
KJV - beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
OT:6760
tsala` (tsaw-lah’); a primitive root: probably to curve; used only as denominative from OT:6763, to limp (as if one-sided):
KJV - halt.
(Biblesoft’s New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
As you can see even Strong's has gotten a few makeovers in meanings of words. I still stand by the word ‘curve’ given what modern science has discovered regarding the makeup of the flesh body.
Now you quoted only part of what The Adam said ......she shall be called Woman, because out of Man was she taken
And the woman certainly has the more ‘curves’ of the two bodies.
Previously you said this assertion of Mayr's was "literally true":
"All the individuals of a population... are exposed to the adversity of the environment, and almost all of them perish or fail to reproduce." (E. Mayr, 2001)Now you are saying it is literally false.
In reference to thermodynamics, what physical event takes place in macroevolution that does not take place in microevolution? Be specific. Cite the chemistry.
Alternatively, what physical event is required by evolution that is forbidden by thermodynamics?
No I'm not. Change in populations is a result of differential reproductive success. Even in humans a large percentage -- a third or more -- of conceptions do not come to term. And that is after conception. Variation takes place prior to conception, and most variants of sperm and egg fail. It is selection after variation that weeds out bad mutations, and in sexually reproducing organisms, there are hundreds of eggs and millions of sperm cells produced for every pair that result in a reproducing adult.
[ECO] "every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers" (Darwin)...In your view then, Darwin's assertion, "every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers", is or was true circa 2007, but is now metaphorical. You say it is metaphorical because it contains the phrase "may be said." Removing "may be said" instantly transforms Darwin's assertion into "utter nonsense". Let us compare the assertions with and without "may be said".[js1138, 2007] These are all true statements.
[ECO] 'every single organic being is striving to have as many descendants as it can'
[js1138, 2009] Utter nonsense.
[ECO] "every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers" (Darwin)
[js1138, 2009] Darwin was being metaphorical, as indicated by the phrase: “may be said to be striving.”
(1) every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbersNow, you say (1) is true, but (2) is "utter nonsense". Which, of course, is quite odd, and immediately leads us to inquire why you think so. In fact, (1) implies (2). For, as anyone can see, if it may be said that (2), then there is no reason not to say (2).(2) every single organic being around us is striving to the utmost to increase in numbers
And if (2) is "utter nonsense", as you claim it is, should not Darwin have phrased it as: it may not be said that every single organic being around us is striving to the utmost to increase in numbers, for to say so is utter nonsense.' ?
[js1138] in humans a large percentage -- a third or more -- of conceptions do not come to term
In other words, Mayr's statement is literally false.
Are you saying Darwinists refuse to ask THE HARD QUESTIONS?..
You know; like political liberal pundits on TV among each other..
In other words you can’t read a simple declarative sentence.
Parse it for us. In terms of evolution — many variations produced; only a few are successful at continuing the germ line, what part is false?
I can hardly wait until some state law requires evolution to be debated in high school classrooms.
As long as it is simply presented as something to be memorized, kids can do the minimum required to pass the tests and then forget it.
But if you require a lengthy and detailed defence of evolution, the amount of material available, including the transcripts of the Dover trial, will make a much stronger impression.
I personally think a history of science would be useful to kids. For me, the history of the debates is really entertaining. For one thin you discover that all the objections andcreationist talking points were debated by scientists for nearly 80 years before reaching the modern synthesis.
What we have now is akin to the status of perpetual motion and free energy machines. It's hardly worth the effort to answer every question that was raised and answered a hundred years ago.
But if the law requires it, the full debate will be taken into the classroom, and students will be required to show the math, so to speak, if they want ot argue.
The word “striving” is a metaphor. It is literally true that populations of organisms multiply their numbers up to the carrying capacity of the environment, at which point selection becomes a significant factor in reproduction.
What Malthus noticed is that reproduction will increase population size until carrying capacity is reached. This is inevitable given the mathematics of reproduction. A change in the environment may temporarily increase the carrying capacity, but the population will eventually overtake environmental capacity.
It becomes nonsense when stretched beyond its intended meaning. There are few non trivial statements in any human language that cannot be made into nonsense by a hostile reading.
Me too.. but will never happen.. the socialists and "evos" even the Marxists are on the same train.. You know to propagandize that the THIRD human on this planet did NOT come from the first two.. That he or she evolved as well as the first two.. Evolved in a creative yarn as unprovable as the creationist story is.. However the creationist story could be a metaphor of what really happened.. Since what really happened could be quite unbelievable to normal humans.. and a distraction from lifes real issues..
The judeo christian bible treats origination quickly and metaphorically.. and gets on to the deeper and real issues of life on this planet.. Where humans came from may be beyond humans mental grasp.. UNLESS they concoct a fictitious yarn.. to answer and occlude reality..
Faith is the answer.. to believe the tale of evolution you must make the jump to faith.. I have no problem with that.. You seem to be a believer.. Well God bless you.. You know a believer in the evolution of humans..
I believe in evolution too.. for as Jesus said; "You MUST be born again".. Now thats serious evolution.. being born as another species?.. WoW..
The minute someone claims to believe a factual reading of the creation account, they are slapped with the *Six day, 6,000 year old earth, flat earth, geocentric solar system, pi=3, Bible literalist* label. But you knew that. You’ve been around these threads long enough and you have decent reading comprehension.
We are the ones constantly reminding you that we do know how to interpret Scripture and that we don’t take the whole Bible literally, but it falls on deaf ears.
So, back to the question about how to interpret DARWIN’s works since we were told that he wrote some stuff metaphorically,
“How do you know if the parts that you think are literal aren’t metaphor after all? If you’re going to take some parts literally, then you have to take all of what he said literally and if you’re going to take some parts metaphorically, then you have to take it all metaphorically.”
And how do you make that determination as to which parts are meant to be taken metaphorically and which parts are to be taken literally?
That’s not my question to answer, it’s the question for the Darwinists to answer. It’s their work that they use to support their point of view.
nail.....jello.....wall......
I've read them long enough to know it's a serious mischaracterization to say that everyone who believes the Theory of Evolution does this to anyone who claims to belive a factual reading of the creation account.
[[In reference to thermodynamics, what physical event takes place in macroevolution that does not take place in microevolution? Be specific. Cite the chemistry.]]
You know full well that adaptive changes generally involve loss of information JS- You also know that Macroevolution demands an ever upward icnreasing complexity- Microevolution is subject to, and demostrates the second law, Macroevolution violates it at trillions of ever upward increasing complexities. As you know full well- All information is present and accoutned for in order for adaption to happen, and what we find, once again, is that microevolution follows the second law- informaiton is NOT increasing via hte necessary non species specific additions, but rather is being lost- Macroevolution DEMANDS that non species specific informaiton be added- trillions of times, in order to crerate increasingly compelx structures where once htese structures did not exist, and for which the species was not coded for.
From the moment of birth, entropy is constantly workign on systems. Mutations constantly work against our bodies, we suffer organ and systems breakdowns, our bodies become worn and tired. W witness entropy at it’s ‘finest’ workign all throughout our lives. Macroevolutionists however tell us that from the first ‘simple cells onward’ cells were increasing non species specific informaiton in a constant state of ever increasing complexity (Apparently Self organizing it must be pointed out)
You can try to defend Macroevolution via denying the effects of hte second law if you like, but it is a losing argument
And let me just add that before you go on with your argument, that serious scientists won’t even touch Dr. Schneider’s claims- infact, they have coem out against taking on such arguments because it makes them look silly
What physical process required by evolution is barred by the 2nd Law? Be specific about the chemistry.
Woops- posted too soon- As well as physical heat entropy, you HAVE to deal with Information entropy working against the whole process of trillions of supposedly ever upward assembling informaiton rises (Somehow managing to both escape information entropy AND escaping mutaiton assaults on the supposedly newly formed rises in non species specific systems) (Think of info entropy along hte lines of sending digital info over lines- there is always degredation, because even info is subject to the effects of entropy). We witness information entropy all throughout biology- soemthign that is in direct opposition to the supposed increasing information that is demanded by Macroevolution
These entropies are NO small matter JS- they can’t simply be waved away as insignificant to hte hypothesis of Macroevolution simply because some static non living systems of geometric designs might arise naturally in nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.