So are you going to tell us who this mystery author is? I would like to know.
I don’t see how observation of NS does not imply developed from NS. If a process is ongoing and works then one can assume it has always worked in that manner, therefore speciation from NS is the most viable and logical reasoning for the species which exist in the world.
I also don’t see how NS is simple. Conceptually, yes it is simple but to understand the hows and whys of NS it requires more than a simple understanding of biology. There are many different processes which contribute to NS, each process requiring knowledge of biology, chemistry and physics. Each process clarifies the picture, but even missing one of these points will result in a failure to truly understand how NS works.
I would also suggest reading, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution” by Richard Dawkins. He can get a little preachy at times but it very clearly outlines the processes involved in evolution, why they work and how they have been tested, including NS.
I don’t see how observation of NS does not imply developed from NS. If a process is ongoing and works then one can assume it has always worked in that manner, therefore speciation from NS is the most viable and logical reasoning for the species which exist in the world.
I also don’t see how NS is simple. Conceptually, yes it is simple but to understand the hows and whys of NS it requires more than a simple understanding of biology. There are many different processes which contribute to NS, each process requiring knowledge of biology, chemistry and physics. Each process clarifies the picture, but even missing one of these points will result in a failure to truly understand how NS works.
I would also suggest reading, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution” by Richard Dawkins. He can get a little preachy at times but it very clearly outlines the processes involved in evolution, why they work and how they have been tested, including NS.
Well, for the simplicity of NS, I do agree that when one tries to describe it for a very specific situation it can be very difficult, but yes I was refering to the concept.
The book I'm reading is 'The Biotic Message' from Walter James ReMine.
Two things about this book though, or actually three.
The first being that you can probably only buy it at creationist websites. Most creationist webstores have a very big variety in quality of books (and other materials). I'd say about half is stupid or very short, about 40% is reasonable and about 10% is worthy of being read by academics.
The second thing would be that it is a challenge to read. I'm not unintelligent, mind me (doing a Master in Theology), but it's not always easy to get his point.
The third thing is that, though I have a sympathy for his own theory, like with most books, he is much, much better in explaining why others are wrong, but less good when explaining why he himself is right
As for Dawkins, I've read one of his books a few years ago and was unimpressed. I've done a minor in biology and geology, just to get some of the basics and jargon, so I'd prefer something more substantial if you don't mind.
Natural selection
06/08/2011 03:51:26 PM
- 980 Views
selection for suitability
06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM
- 632 Views
Thanks for your responce
06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM
- 747 Views
I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it:
06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM
- 677 Views
Just a question
06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM
- 680 Views
Yes it can
06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM
- 556 Views
But how?
06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM
- 749 Views
Re: Just a question
06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM
- 768 Views
I'm not sure I understand you
06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM
- 656 Views
All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies.
06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM
- 682 Views
Then it is still a tautology
06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM
- 693 Views
You can know it's beneifical to a particular individual, but it's harder to say for populations.
06/08/2011 10:18:16 PM
- 788 Views
Maybe...
07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM
- 640 Views
I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions.
09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM
- 729 Views
we can't really know ahead of time what makes a specific trait benefical in that environment
09/08/2011 06:16:02 PM
- 792 Views
As I understand it
06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM
- 622 Views
Better...
06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM
- 607 Views
Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"?
06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM
- 743 Views
yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM*
09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM
- 293 Views
No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway.
09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM
- 671 Views
Hmmm... there's some truth to that
06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM
- 691 Views
The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify...
06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM
- 729 Views
The questions go deeper
06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM
- 725 Views
Re: The questions go deeper
06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM
- 700 Views
I think I know why you don't understand my question.
06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM
- 732 Views
How many equation's has Moraine screwed up? *NM*
06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM
- 303 Views
100% I think Moriaine is a very beneficial trait that contributes a lot to the RAFO pool *NM*
06/08/2011 09:46:54 PM
- 323 Views
Re: Natural selection
07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM
- 699 Views
Thanks a lot
07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM
- 840 Views
2 things
07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM
- 619 Views
Re: 2 things
07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM
- 828 Views
Re: 2 things
07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM
- 644 Views
My best guess
07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM
- 676 Views
Re: My best guess
07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM
- 616 Views
Re: My best guess
07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM
- 765 Views