It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by squiz
The term Darwinism is still widely used in the literature, from Szostak to Lenski. Look it up, try reading some actuall research instead of blogs from crusading atheists like Dawkins, PZ and Coyne.
but natural forces do create languages as solution for communication, how for humanoids, the same for animals. And of course, those languages evolve as complexity of life evolves.
OMG!!!! Can't we see the logical problem here?
We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the "creative factor" in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.
in the past, improved versions of Darwinism have taken the place of inadequate ones and that a new version -- a Darwinism of the future -- may well displace population genetical Darwinism without ending, but instead enriching, Darwinism as such.
Darwinism refers to its author's proposed causal explanation of evolution -- natural selection -- and to theories in which this process plays the dominant role in evolution, including human evolution.
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.
Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by SuperFrog
Ah... because humans and animals are sentient beings, intelligent agents. Exactly my point to begin with.
Protocol II
1. It is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains: war will thus be brought on to the economic ground, where the nations will not fail to perceive in the assistance we give the strength of our predominance, and this state of things will put both sides at the mercy of our international AGENTUR; which possesses millions of eyes ever on the watch and unhampered by any limitations whatsoever. Our international rights will then wipe out national rights, in the proper sense of right, and will rule the nations precisely as the civil law of States rules the relations of their subjects among themselves.
2. The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world. As is well known to you, these specialists of ours have been drawing to fit them for rule the information they need from our political plans from the lessons of history, from observations made of the events of every moment as it passes. The GOYIM are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them - let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on the memories of all they have enjoyed. For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.
DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION
3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM.
Originally posted by onthedownlow
Originally posted by Barcs
Evolution as a process is a proven fact.
Humm? Is evolution a fact, or is de-evolution? Ooops! Evolution is merely a theory that has not been disproven. Instead of using double standards in the applications of qualifiers, apply them equally to all. By your standard, Creation and ID are facts as well.
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by john_bmth
So you think you are right and that others are wrong. Very scientific of you. You don't pause, asking yourself: "Am I right? What if I am wrong?" You just watch TV and believe whatever BS (what you call "fact") they spoon-feed you.
I am sorry, but I went very deep into chaos theory and physics, and I can tell you, for now science never explained why we exist. Well, its explications are as far-fetch than ID or creationism's explication. All that science does is to make a guess and see if it holds (read Stephen Hawking's explication of a theory).
Truth is, NOBODY knows the truth.
No offence, mate, I just get a bit carried away when I see false "scientific thinking". I wish you a good day, peace and prosper, you know, the World is the way it is because it lacks peace so let's not do the same here,
Freedom and Joy.
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by john_bmth
Truth is, NOBODY knows the truth.
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by john_bmth
So you think you are right and that others are wrong. Very scientific of you.
Originally posted by swan001
You don't pause, asking yourself: "Am I right? What if I am wrong?"
Originally posted by swan001You just watch TV and believe whatever BS (what you call "fact") they spoon-feed you.
Originally posted by swan001I am sorry, but I went very deep into chaos theory and physics, and I can tell you, for now science never explained why we exist. Well, its explications are as far-fetch than ID or creationism's explication. All that science does is to make a guess and see if it holds (read Stephen Hawking's explication of a theory).
Originally posted by swan001Truth is, NOBODY knows the truth.
No offence, mate, I just get a bit carried away when I see false "scientific thinking". I wish you a good day, peace and prosper, you know, the World is the way it is because it lacks peace so let's not do the same here,
Freedom and Joy.
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Barcs
I like your post better than the others, so I'll take some of my limited time to grace your post with an answer.
Thank you for your politeness and your civilized manner. I did not see those qualities in the other posters so I won't reply to them. They are brain-washed by the media into believing only one thing and some of them actually called the religious world "a dark place".
Originally posted by swan001
I do, for one, favour a scientific approach to things. If that approach fails, then I use a metaphysical approach to a problem. And if that fails, then I try to find a logical explanation using the only data available: our ancestor's stories.
Originally posted by swan001
I think evolution plays a small part in, well, evolution. We see it everyday.
But evolution is too damn slow. It's too slow to explain mankind's sudden leap forward.
It takes tens of millions of years for an insect to develop a armour on its wings (coleopteran specie). Yet, we attained armour technology in the Middle age, only 4 million years after LUCY.
Does that mean creationism is the answer? No. Creationnism is a POSSIBILITY. Why not try something in-between, grouping science and ID? What if mankind has been created by advanced beings (some say Vegan, other say Sirians) that took millions of years to evolve?edit on 18-6-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Barcs
I like your post better than the others, so I'll take some of my limited time to grace your post with an answer.
Thank you for your politeness and your civilized manner. I did not see those qualities in the other posters so I won't reply to them. They are brain-washed by the media into believing only one thing and some of them actually called the religious world "a dark place".
I do, for one, favour a scientific approach to things. If that approach fails, then I use a metaphysical approach to a problem. And if that fails, then I try to find a logical explanation using the only data available: our ancestor's stories.
I think evolution plays a small part in, well, evolution. We see it everyday.
But evolution is too damn slow. It's too slow to explain mankind's sudden leap forward.
It takes tens of millions of years for an insect to develop a armour on its wings (coleopteran specie). Yet, we attained armour technology in the Middle age, only 4 million years after LUCY.
Does that mean creationism is the answer? No. Creationnism is a POSSIBILITY. Why not try something in-between, grouping science and ID? What if mankind has been created by advanced beings (some say Vegan, other say Sirians) that took millions of years to evolve?edit on 18-6-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Barcs
Yes.
A pressure does trigger evolution.
This pressure came from the Ice Ages. If I remember correctly, the last one was in -100 000. We started to cloth, hunt, stay warm (and that meant we had to build tools).
But why only "we"? Why this pressure didn't trigger that same evolution unto other human-like mammals?
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Barcs
Yes.
A pressure does trigger evolution.
This pressure came from the Ice Ages. If I remember correctly, the last one was in -100 000. We started to cloth, hunt, stay warm (and that meant we had to build tools).
But why only "we"? Why this pressure didn't trigger that same evolution unto other human-like mammals?
Why were evidences found that our ancestor's brains literally outgrew its skull capacity?
We are the only animal that can create fire.
We are the only animal who achieved high technology... just because of an Ice Age?
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by HappyBunny
We are the only animal that can create fire.
We are the only animal who achieved high technology... just because of an Ice Age?