Evolution - True Or False

(Side note: the intelligent do not debate semantics, but they use semantics as a tool to ensure a common usage of meaning.)

The most important driving force in evolution is natural selection.
Genetic drift and sexual selection are contributing factors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, but by naming it 'driving force' you will incite the mob to grab the last straw and turn it into Noah's ark.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you believe that is so why do you engage in debates on semantics.
Why do you instigate debates on sematics.

My character is such, that if you present an idea...it is either true/ false or unknown. Everyone fits into those categories. You seem to have more categories or the lines between the categories is less defined.

I don't have this problem.

If you present a sematic I will instantly define it as true or false or unknown.
This begs the question...why do you keep bringing up sematics to a person that doesn't mind categorizing a sematic in true or false?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've just about had it up to here with the mob. While evolution clearly allowed us to develop intelligence it remains a mystery why so few of us have used it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't. I use semantics, the study of meaning, to seek to clarify the intentions of others in any discussion or debate.
Do you think meaning is unimportant?

Yes. I have noticed that serious limitation in your thinking. Do you believe it is something you may be able to grow out of?

True do you know what your problems are?

?

You failed utterly to convey any sense in those sentences. Feel free to try again.

 

You know I didn't understand what you said either...

You use semantics..but you don't engage in sematic behavior? Either I don't understand or you too are founding yourself as a hypocrit.

It's proved you wrong thus far at least twice, now...I think proving a geologist is being a arrogant simpleton has it's own rewards...

 

You don't understand. Live with it, or educate yourself. Better yet get someone else to educate you. Please don't waste time replying. I've wasted enough effort on you. My Ignore List gets its first new member for several months.

 

I will live with the satisfaction that I have proked an emotion response Ophilolite. It was indeed intresting to see you beg...for my attention in private message and now flee.

Yes, that is definitely satisfaction I'm feeling...

P.S Perhaps it's best you don't see that...

I don't even have a lighter...

 

If claims are either right, wrong, or unknown, how do you order the claims which you have placed in "unkown"?

What if a claim is promising, but does not yet have all the information needed to place it in the "true" group? Is it then considered just as valid as a claim with absolutly no merit at all?

For instance, the claim "I have seen a purple polar bear": you cannot easily verify this, nor can you know what I have seen such that you could know it to be wrong. So it should go into the "unknown" category.

But the claim: "Every polar bear south of Juno, Alaska is purple", while similarly unknown to you, is much easier to prove false. A single polar bear, living on the southern outskirts of Juno, or any polar bear in a zoo in the continental USA, would invalidate the claim.

Does your "unknown" category have enough granularity to see the difference in these two claims?

 

Natural Selection.

 

Come on now all you people, you really know evolution is fact stop yappin about things that are nonsense. We know the truth, evolution isn't a theory anymore than females are, we know evolution is reality. God made nothing.

 

You figured them out ??!!?!?!!!?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Since you keep trying to seperate the two into distinct theories, perhaps you could provide the unique definitions for each? I honestly don't think either term is very useful in modern discussions.

 

I have only those three catagory and I do believe they cover all possiblities and can sort anything with the right amount of detail. Far more critically important is the process to those conclusions.

I must first resist that compultion to use ridicule as part of a interogation method and stive for direct observation and discovery. This is a very human reaction but as we've seen in the thread above ridicule is a key to nothing but ignorance.

The first question I must ask: Do you have a picuture of this purple polar bear" In refrence to "I have seen a purple polar bear.

Was the Bear artificial colored?
Was this a real Polar bear?

These questions emphasize that it is indeed possible to have a purple polar bear but resigns to logic in determining how the polar bear became purple without jumping to conclusions.

I often view discovery in terms of riddles. If you don't aske yourself or others the appropriate questions you may choose the most obvious answer and in most riddles the obvious answer is rarely the right answer.

 

I got you by the balls now buster.

Scientific definition of syngameon

Clusters that comprise several morphospecies represent a syngameon, i.e., "the sum total of species or semispecies linked by frequent or occasional hybridization in nature.

Mol Biol Evol. 2001 18(7):1315-29.

It's used very specifically to describe certain groups of species. It is not used to describe all species, because...they are NOT all syngameons.

 

I don't about you. Since we now have scientifically defined syngameon I hope you will drop your retarded act.

 

No it doesn't troll. Learn how to read. Or look up the reference if you need an example.

Scientific definition of syngameon

Clusters that comprise several morphospecies represent a syngameon, i.e., "the sum total of species or semispecies linked by frequent or occasional hybridization in nature.

Mol Biol Evol. 2001 18(7):1315-29.

 

This example is rather specific:

Which distinguishes these species from the normal situation of strict species separation in nature.

 

The bible relates when The Deluge occured specificly. This is understood today through lineage given in the bible. The extent was global...complete destruction by water.

 

Thanks for the link spur.

 

So almost all the sedimentary rocks are testament to that catastrophe, right Saquist?