Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

shunyadragon · Feb 28, 2004, 08:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gluadys @ QUOTE=ruiner,)

No I think chance has a lot to do with specific evolutionary events happenning in the past.

There is certainly place for accident in evolutionary history. The classic example is the meteor whose impact with the earth did away with non-avian dinosaurs. Without that accident, it is unlikely that mammals would emerge as dominant large species.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I do not view the catastrophic events as necessarilly 'accidental'. The earth has apparently experienced a number of catastrophic events involving meteorites that are probably a part of the nature of the solar system and cyclic in nature. Words like 'by chance' and 'accident' are not appropriate for what we know now of the course of existence.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
It is often difficult to speak of evolutionary processes (especially adaptation) without introducing inappropriate notions of intention. Certainly no primates ever split off from a parent group with the intention of founding the hominid lineage. And I don't expect you meant that. The simple and more accurate answer is that most species establish local population groups, and with less gene flow through the species as a whole, and more gene flow confined within the local group, different groups tend to accumulate different characteristics. In one such group, the characteristics we recognize as hominid began to appear and were incorporated as an adaptation to local conditions. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Notions of intent or design should be kept separate from science of the evolving existence. They tend to cloud the important issues of science and create a bias in the conclusions.

I believe in God, but in my concept the creation cannot be separated from the creator like the clock and the clock maker. Intent and design are anthropomorphic in a clock maker concept. The attributes we see in the universe are simply our view and not reality.

'God is not a chess player with the white pieces.
God is the sea and we are the fishes.'

Your posts are well thought out and very accurate. They reflect a considerable depth of knowledge. You probably a scientist or an educator.

Feb 28, 2004, 08:00 pm	#92 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gluadys @ QUOTE=ruiner,) No I think chance has a lot to do with specific evolutionary events happenning in the past. There is certainly place for accident in evolutionary history. The classic example is the meteor whose impact with the earth did away with non-avian dinosaurs. Without that accident, it is unlikely that mammals would emerge as dominant large species.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I do not view the catastrophic events as necessarilly 'accidental'. The earth has apparently experienced a number of catastrophic events involving meteorites that are probably a part of the nature of the solar system and cyclic in nature. Words like 'by chance' and 'accident' are not appropriate for what we know now of the course of existence. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by It is often difficult to speak of evolutionary processes (especially adaptation) without introducing inappropriate notions of intention. Certainly no primates ever split off from a parent group with the intention of founding the hominid lineage. And I don't expect you meant that. The simple and more accurate answer is that most species establish local population groups, and with less gene flow through the species as a whole, and more gene flow confined within the local group, different groups tend to accumulate different characteristics. In one such group, the characteristics we recognize as hominid began to appear and were incorporated as an adaptation to local conditions. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Notions of intent or design should be kept separate from science of the evolving existence. They tend to cloud the important issues of science and create a bias in the conclusions. I believe in God, but in my concept the creation cannot be separated from the creator like the clock and the clock maker. Intent and design are anthropomorphic in a clock maker concept. The attributes we see in the universe are simply our view and not reality. 'God is not a chess player with the white pieces. God is the sea and we are the fishes.' Your posts are well thought out and very accurate. They reflect a considerable depth of knowledge. You probably a scientist or an educator. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .