Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Nov 24 2009 12:29pm)

A creator -guiding- evolution makes the two perfectly compatible, however.



All it does is explain the mechanism the best that we know how to explain it, that's all.  You can remove Natural Selection, replace it with God, and still have a pretty solid theory.  Rather than the random vagaries of the universe picking those changes which are most advantageous, do a quick search-and-replace with "God" and it's still ticking along. 

Mind you, it's completely unscientific and makes not even a lick of logical sense, but it still fits.

Quote (infinitesimal @ 23 Nov 2009 21:35)

I'm not debating whether god can act as the "selector" in the process. I'm saying that natural selection is one of the major processes that contributes to evolution.

no?

Scientific theories have to falsifiable. How do you falsify god?

Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Nov 24 2009 12:34pm)

See, that's natural selection that you're describing, there.  Not evolution. 

And I don't personally believe in a creator at all, but it's certainly a possibility.  Perhaps God needs to cull the weak for some reason we can't fathom, or something.

Quote (pissed247 @ 23 Nov 2009 21:35)

It is not the universe picking changes which are advantageous, it is that the mutations that aren't advantageous perish. Thus is Natural Selection.

Quote (pissed247 @ 23 Nov 2009 21:37)

Evolution is blatantly contradicted in Genesis and is blatantly contradicted in the theory of Intelligent Design. It is plain to see. I think you are lacking education on the subject of evolution.

Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Nov 24 2009 02:25am)

That post, I mean.

Natural Selection is not a vital component of Evolution.  It's the most logical conclusion available given a lack of evidence for God.

Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Nov 24 2009 12:38pm)

Unless, of course, God is doing it.  :P 

The inherent setup of the universe makes it such that those with disadvantageous mutations die.  You don't have to accept the "picking" language, but that's basically the point.



Ah!  Once again, the blind assertion of your viewpoint.

That's a suggested method of converting sinners in the Principia.

Quote (Jazz_Thing @ Nov 23 2009 07:41pm)

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote (pissed247 @ 23 Nov 2009 21:42)

Blind assertion? No, I have made valid points, and your only rebuttal was that I had confused Natural Selection with evolution, which I have not and which is irrelevant even if I did. Why is it so hard for you to seriously consider someone else's viewpoint and take a good hard look at the facts?

Quote (Jazz_Thing @ 23 Nov 2009 21:41)

This makes no sense whatsoever.

edit: Without natural selection evolution is biologically arbitrary, which means there is no connection between living things and their offspring. This is not the case.

Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Nov 24 2009 12:48pm)

I am looking at the facts.  And the fact is, stating your viewpoint again without any backup other than "You haven't studied" is a blind assertion.  With a touch of ad hominem, of course. 



No it doesn't, if you come up with an alternative theory which still allows for connection between living things and their offspring.

Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Nov 24 2009 02:48am)

I am looking at the facts.  And the fact is, stating your viewpoint again without any backup other than "You haven't studied" is a blind assertion.  With a touch of ad hominem, of course. 



No it doesn't, if you come up with an alternative theory which still allows for connection between living things and their offspring.