It's killing darwinism as we know it--Neo Darwinism. And I would argue even darwinism period.
Yeah, but is it really?
To blend man/ machine and evolve (good luck with that btw), it would be very helpful to know what causes man to change, and more inmoprtantly what are his LIMITATIONS.
Selective pressure causes man (and all life) to 'change'. Limitations are the physical constraints of earth.
Methmaniac said:
"The origion of species by means of natural selection, OR the preservation of favoured races in th struggle for life."
He and Hiter would have had nice conversations over tea I would imagine.
Conflating Darwin with Hitler based on a misreading of his book title doesn't demonstrate anything. Perhaps a 'favoured race' is simply one with attributes that make it more likely to survive. Favored by the environment and natural selection.
Darwin claimed ultimately gradual random mutations and natural selection is responsible for the diversity of life we see today.
Dr. Noble ( try arguing against his credentials) very well argues the processes arent truly random.( which i agree with)
Moreover, they cant be random, and randomness cannot explain species change or proteins and the genome. The gene is not the vehicle. DNA is not alive.
Nor is a virus, in the typical sense of the word. And yet, this does not ultimately change anything about the reality of viruses.
Like he said, you remove it from a cell and put it in a petri dish; and it will do nothing.
Same with a virus, and yet- we can still see a virus change spontaneously when it has infected a hosts cell.
NOW you may still believe tiny invisible random mutations lead to formation of new species with complex new parts--- as a PSEDOSCIENCE
ITS OK to believe and have hopes for things.
Your patronising tone in the face of incredible opposition is strange to me. You must be fundamentally misunderstanding the meaning of specific words and concepts. You are pushing a completely non-scientific perspective, and claiming it actually is scientific. Pseudo-science is the drawing of scientitic and objective conclusions using misattribution and errant cause-and-effect deductions. It is manipulating evidence to make it fit a particular view, as opposed to allowing the evidence to inform that view. The paucity of evidence that you can present would make drawing conclusions really difficult, but you continue to do so. This does not mean you are privy to secret truth's, but that you are manipulating the OVERT truth to fit your agenda and claiming truth where there are none. That is EXACTLY what pseudo-science is.
But if you believe a designer alllowed for diversity within the species he made it fits wonderfully.
"According to their kind"
---God
BUT you "kinda" need the "kind" first.
How does the idea of a creator fit wonderfully? In truth, it doesn't fit at all, given the weight of scientific evidence against it. The existence of a creator who actively created all life on earth is actually very difficult to fit into what we also know about the universe. You must explain to me how this works...
or even a "lm right cause I say so" rebuttal
doesnt really refute my premise
Given the incredible weight of evidence which belies your supposition, I feel under no obligation to claim to be right. You are simply incorrect in mistaking a natural physical process for something magical, particularly when the magic has been adequately explained. There is no room for the fairytale, no matter how much propaganda you espouse.
Before you go any further, if you want to have a discussion, please be sure to try and address what I have written.
