Discipline in young people should come from home

Discipline in young people should come from home

Discipline in young people should come from home

First published in Readers' Letters

WATCHING a TV programme of mods and rockers set in the fabulous 60s, I wonder if that decade was the start of the deterioration of our younger generation.

My generation was the last to have national service, as was pointed out, and was the end of discipline, albeit inflicted on a generation of 18- year-olds.

Since then such discipline has only been the prerogative of parents.

This, of course, was superseded by the free thinking generation, who did not believe in using the rod to spoil the child.

Discipline in schools should to a degree be the prerogative of teachers, who have their hands tied securely.

It is a credit to a lot of young people who put their heads down and work hard that we see such a wealth of achievement. It is a pity that all of the young do not attempt to achieve anything.

Individual cases, as headlined by your excellent paper, gives us a hope for the future.

What is hard to understand is the grip of modern technology, zombies walking the streets with phone permanently stuck in their ears, and even when dining punching away with their fingers as if there were no tomorrow.

The Prime Minister has got it right, for once, discipline should come from home, and the greatest thing is a united family unit.

You know even the animals have such instincts. Every wild creature cuffs its young, they must know something.

ALAN BLANDFORD, Southampton.

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:31pm Wed 27 Aug 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

People have been writing letters like this for thousands of years - Socrates wrote about the lack of respect he saw in the youth of his time. It's those same youths who get old and eventually end up writing about how rubbish the next lot coming along are...

Going back to the days of national service and inflicting beatings on young people is not the way forward. The precise thing that separates humans from wild animals is that we have the ability to check our instincts and not behave savagely. Advocating that we should copy them is not a recipe for improvement.
People have been writing letters like this for thousands of years - Socrates wrote about the lack of respect he saw in the youth of his time. It's those same youths who get old and eventually end up writing about how rubbish the next lot coming along are... Going back to the days of national service and inflicting beatings on young people is not the way forward. The precise thing that separates humans from wild animals is that we have the ability to check our instincts and not behave savagely. Advocating that we should copy them is not a recipe for improvement. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 5

1:32pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Positively4thStreet says...

It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline.
Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.
It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline. Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

1:49pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Facewagon says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline.
Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.
Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline. Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.[/p][/quote]Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales. Facewagon
  • Score: 1

1:56pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Facewagon wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline.
Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.
Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.
Tell that to people in Iraq and Syria.
[quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline. Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.[/p][/quote]Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.[/p][/quote]Tell that to people in Iraq and Syria. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

2:03pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Facewagon says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Facewagon wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline.
Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.
Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.
Tell that to people in Iraq and Syria.
What's that got to do with your lack of understanding of evolution?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline. Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.[/p][/quote]Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.[/p][/quote]Tell that to people in Iraq and Syria.[/p][/quote]What's that got to do with your lack of understanding of evolution? Facewagon
  • Score: 1

2:17pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Facewagon wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Facewagon wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline.
Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.
Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.
Tell that to people in Iraq and Syria.
What's that got to do with your lack of understanding of evolution?
What do you need to understand about a fallacy?
What I do understand,is there's people in the middle east in the 21st century,being dealt with Ghengis Kahn style..some evolution.
[quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline. Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.[/p][/quote]Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.[/p][/quote]Tell that to people in Iraq and Syria.[/p][/quote]What's that got to do with your lack of understanding of evolution?[/p][/quote]What do you need to understand about a fallacy? What I do understand,is there's people in the middle east in the 21st century,being dealt with Ghengis Kahn style..some evolution. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

2:20pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Facewagon says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Facewagon wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Facewagon wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline.
Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.
Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.
Tell that to people in Iraq and Syria.
What's that got to do with your lack of understanding of evolution?
What do you need to understand about a fallacy?
What I do understand,is there's people in the middle east in the 21st century,being dealt with Ghengis Kahn style..some evolution.
How can you describe something as a fallacy when you don't have even the faintest understanding of what it is?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline. Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.[/p][/quote]Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.[/p][/quote]Tell that to people in Iraq and Syria.[/p][/quote]What's that got to do with your lack of understanding of evolution?[/p][/quote]What do you need to understand about a fallacy? What I do understand,is there's people in the middle east in the 21st century,being dealt with Ghengis Kahn style..some evolution.[/p][/quote]How can you describe something as a fallacy when you don't have even the faintest understanding of what it is? Facewagon
  • Score: 2

2:30pm Wed 27 Aug 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Facewagon wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Facewagon wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline.
Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.
Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.
Tell that to people in Iraq and Syria.
What's that got to do with your lack of understanding of evolution?
What do you need to understand about a fallacy?
What I do understand,is there's people in the middle east in the 21st century,being dealt with Ghengis Kahn style..some evolution.
With respect, Facewagon is right, you are confused. Your argument is based on a false premise - 'human nature has never evolved at all' - and it looks as if you've also got a misplaced understanding of what evolution is, since you're using it in a very loosely-defined way. Specific episodes of human behaviour are not attributable to evolution, whereas (for example) walking upright on two legs is. The fact that man as a species remains capable of unspeakable brutality does not contradict the fact that as a species we have also evolved to (generally) organise societies around attributes such as collective responsibility and altruism.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline. Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.[/p][/quote]Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.[/p][/quote]Tell that to people in Iraq and Syria.[/p][/quote]What's that got to do with your lack of understanding of evolution?[/p][/quote]What do you need to understand about a fallacy? What I do understand,is there's people in the middle east in the 21st century,being dealt with Ghengis Kahn style..some evolution.[/p][/quote]With respect, Facewagon is right, you are confused. Your argument is based on a false premise - 'human nature has never evolved at all' - and it looks as if you've also got a misplaced understanding of what evolution is, since you're using it in a very loosely-defined way. Specific episodes of human behaviour are not attributable to evolution, whereas (for example) walking upright on two legs is. The fact that man as a species remains capable of unspeakable brutality does not contradict the fact that as a species we have also evolved to (generally) organise societies around attributes such as collective responsibility and altruism. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 3

2:46pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Positively4thStreet says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Facewagon wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Facewagon wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline.
Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.
Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.
Tell that to people in Iraq and Syria.
What's that got to do with your lack of understanding of evolution?
What do you need to understand about a fallacy?
What I do understand,is there's people in the middle east in the 21st century,being dealt with Ghengis Kahn style..some evolution.
With respect, Facewagon is right, you are confused. Your argument is based on a false premise - 'human nature has never evolved at all' - and it looks as if you've also got a misplaced understanding of what evolution is, since you're using it in a very loosely-defined way. Specific episodes of human behaviour are not attributable to evolution, whereas (for example) walking upright on two legs is. The fact that man as a species remains capable of unspeakable brutality does not contradict the fact that as a species we have also evolved to (generally) organise societies around attributes such as collective responsibility and altruism.
That hasn't "evolved". We've always had organisational capabilities.
The only thing that has evolved is our own awareness of our psychology and capabilities,which were inate from the start.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It certainly severely tests the Darwinist's " Theory of Evolution",when you think that human nature has never evolved at all,and the only thing that has ever kept it in check,and prevented total anarchy,is punitive discipline. Do away with that,and we are very soon back to the law of the jungle.[/p][/quote]Only if you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, its drivers and timescales.[/p][/quote]Tell that to people in Iraq and Syria.[/p][/quote]What's that got to do with your lack of understanding of evolution?[/p][/quote]What do you need to understand about a fallacy? What I do understand,is there's people in the middle east in the 21st century,being dealt with Ghengis Kahn style..some evolution.[/p][/quote]With respect, Facewagon is right, you are confused. Your argument is based on a false premise - 'human nature has never evolved at all' - and it looks as if you've also got a misplaced understanding of what evolution is, since you're using it in a very loosely-defined way. Specific episodes of human behaviour are not attributable to evolution, whereas (for example) walking upright on two legs is. The fact that man as a species remains capable of unspeakable brutality does not contradict the fact that as a species we have also evolved to (generally) organise societies around attributes such as collective responsibility and altruism.[/p][/quote]That hasn't "evolved". We've always had organisational capabilities. The only thing that has evolved is our own awareness of our psychology and capabilities,which were inate from the start. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Wed 27 Aug 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

If you re-read your first post you'll see you've now contradicted yourself. And it's 'innate'. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution, or not?
If you re-read your first post you'll see you've now contradicted yourself. And it's 'innate'. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution, or not? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 2

5:00pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Positively4thStreet says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
If you re-read your first post you'll see you've now contradicted yourself. And it's 'innate'. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution, or not?
No I don't believe in Darwinism, and taking a pot at my spelling is a cheap shot,and proves my point about human nature..Richard Thompson wouldn't approve,I'm sure!
As for contradicting myself,and accusing me of being confused,I think you will find that its you who is confusing evolution,with education,which brings me back to my original point,human nature hasn't evolved,because we are now supposedly educated enough to know better,and to have learnt all the lessons of history,but each generation still thinks it knows better than the last..so theres absolutely no "evolution" there I'm afraid to say.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: If you re-read your first post you'll see you've now contradicted yourself. And it's 'innate'. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution, or not?[/p][/quote]No I don't believe in Darwinism, and taking a pot at my spelling is a cheap shot,and proves my point about human nature..Richard Thompson wouldn't approve,I'm sure! As for contradicting myself,and accusing me of being confused,I think you will find that its you who is confusing evolution,with education,which brings me back to my original point,human nature hasn't evolved,because we are now supposedly educated enough to know better,and to have learnt all the lessons of history,but each generation still thinks it knows better than the last..so theres absolutely no "evolution" there I'm afraid to say. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

6:24pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Facewagon says...

It still seems you're confused about what biological evolution really is. We all know that different members of a species have different characteristics - some are faster than others, some are stronger, etc. Simply put, if organism A has a certain advantageous characteristic in certain circumstances (it may be a prey animal able to run faster than its peers) then it is more likely to be able to reproduce and pass on that genetic characteristic to its offspring, and they to theirs etc. As time goes on, the population with this characteristic grows larger and over a long enough timeline that characteristic can be generally attributed to the species rather than individuals or groups. This is all evolution is. There is no agenda, it's not a process to make a given species objectively and cumulatively "better", it's simply about adaptations and how they affect an organisms chances of reproducing.

If you want evidence of it, look no further than bacterial populations. You may have heard of the concern that bacteria are "becoming immune" to our antibiotics. Why do you think this happens? Because over time, bacteria immune to antibiotics form a significantly larger proportion of the population due to being more likely to reproduce than peers who are not immune. Evolution at work, happening around you - and inside you - every day.

With regard to your notion of "human nature" evolving, there are several points I'd make. Firstly, there is clear and obvious evidence of cultural evolution (separate from biological) that tie into this. For example, I don't believe that the first humans had an innate awareness that stealing is "wrong" before there was ever a concept of property and ownership. Secondly, as I mentioned above there is no agenda to evolution: it's not a flowchart running from dumb animal to philosopher king. If being a vicious, violent, self centred barsteward made it significantly less likely you would reproduce, we may - over many, many generations - begin to see this trait die out. Thirdly, human evolution is complicated by our own abilities to adapt, where cultural evolution and all that goes with it - not least of which is technology - allows us to adapt to situations artificially, to the point that biological evolution doesn't really come into play.
It still seems you're confused about what biological evolution really is. We all know that different members of a species have different characteristics - some are faster than others, some are stronger, etc. Simply put, if organism A has a certain advantageous characteristic in certain circumstances (it may be a prey animal able to run faster than its peers) then it is more likely to be able to reproduce and pass on that genetic characteristic to its offspring, and they to theirs etc. As time goes on, the population with this characteristic grows larger and over a long enough timeline that characteristic can be generally attributed to the species rather than individuals or groups. This is all evolution is. There is no agenda, it's not a process to make a given species objectively and cumulatively "better", it's simply about adaptations and how they affect an organisms chances of reproducing. If you want evidence of it, look no further than bacterial populations. You may have heard of the concern that bacteria are "becoming immune" to our antibiotics. Why do you think this happens? Because over time, bacteria immune to antibiotics form a significantly larger proportion of the population due to being more likely to reproduce than peers who are not immune. Evolution at work, happening around you - and inside you - every day. With regard to your notion of "human nature" evolving, there are several points I'd make. Firstly, there is clear and obvious evidence of cultural evolution (separate from biological) that tie into this. For example, I don't believe that the first humans had an innate awareness that stealing is "wrong" before there was ever a concept of property and ownership. Secondly, as I mentioned above there is no agenda to evolution: it's not a flowchart running from dumb animal to philosopher king. If being a vicious, violent, self centred barsteward made it significantly less likely you would reproduce, we may - over many, many generations - begin to see this trait die out. Thirdly, human evolution is complicated by our own abilities to adapt, where cultural evolution and all that goes with it - not least of which is technology - allows us to adapt to situations artificially, to the point that biological evolution doesn't really come into play. Facewagon
  • Score: -1

6:48pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Facewagon wrote:
It still seems you're confused about what biological evolution really is. We all know that different members of a species have different characteristics - some are faster than others, some are stronger, etc. Simply put, if organism A has a certain advantageous characteristic in certain circumstances (it may be a prey animal able to run faster than its peers) then it is more likely to be able to reproduce and pass on that genetic characteristic to its offspring, and they to theirs etc. As time goes on, the population with this characteristic grows larger and over a long enough timeline that characteristic can be generally attributed to the species rather than individuals or groups. This is all evolution is. There is no agenda, it's not a process to make a given species objectively and cumulatively "better", it's simply about adaptations and how they affect an organisms chances of reproducing.

If you want evidence of it, look no further than bacterial populations. You may have heard of the concern that bacteria are "becoming immune" to our antibiotics. Why do you think this happens? Because over time, bacteria immune to antibiotics form a significantly larger proportion of the population due to being more likely to reproduce than peers who are not immune. Evolution at work, happening around you - and inside you - every day.

With regard to your notion of "human nature" evolving, there are several points I'd make. Firstly, there is clear and obvious evidence of cultural evolution (separate from biological) that tie into this. For example, I don't believe that the first humans had an innate awareness that stealing is "wrong" before there was ever a concept of property and ownership. Secondly, as I mentioned above there is no agenda to evolution: it's not a flowchart running from dumb animal to philosopher king. If being a vicious, violent, self centred barsteward made it significantly less likely you would reproduce, we may - over many, many generations - begin to see this trait die out. Thirdly, human evolution is complicated by our own abilities to adapt, where cultural evolution and all that goes with it - not least of which is technology - allows us to adapt to situations artificially, to the point that biological evolution doesn't really come into play.
Well,I bow to your superior knowledge then Facewagon,but your mate Darwin went to his grave,not really sure if his theory was right or not,and your other mate Dawkins could've given his argument a lot more credibility,by having the bottle to say "There isn't a God" rather than "There probably..isn't a God"
You "Evolutionists", need to have the co
[quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: It still seems you're confused about what biological evolution really is. We all know that different members of a species have different characteristics - some are faster than others, some are stronger, etc. Simply put, if organism A has a certain advantageous characteristic in certain circumstances (it may be a prey animal able to run faster than its peers) then it is more likely to be able to reproduce and pass on that genetic characteristic to its offspring, and they to theirs etc. As time goes on, the population with this characteristic grows larger and over a long enough timeline that characteristic can be generally attributed to the species rather than individuals or groups. This is all evolution is. There is no agenda, it's not a process to make a given species objectively and cumulatively "better", it's simply about adaptations and how they affect an organisms chances of reproducing. If you want evidence of it, look no further than bacterial populations. You may have heard of the concern that bacteria are "becoming immune" to our antibiotics. Why do you think this happens? Because over time, bacteria immune to antibiotics form a significantly larger proportion of the population due to being more likely to reproduce than peers who are not immune. Evolution at work, happening around you - and inside you - every day. With regard to your notion of "human nature" evolving, there are several points I'd make. Firstly, there is clear and obvious evidence of cultural evolution (separate from biological) that tie into this. For example, I don't believe that the first humans had an innate awareness that stealing is "wrong" before there was ever a concept of property and ownership. Secondly, as I mentioned above there is no agenda to evolution: it's not a flowchart running from dumb animal to philosopher king. If being a vicious, violent, self centred barsteward made it significantly less likely you would reproduce, we may - over many, many generations - begin to see this trait die out. Thirdly, human evolution is complicated by our own abilities to adapt, where cultural evolution and all that goes with it - not least of which is technology - allows us to adapt to situations artificially, to the point that biological evolution doesn't really come into play.[/p][/quote]Well,I bow to your superior knowledge then Facewagon,but your mate Darwin went to his grave,not really sure if his theory was right or not,and your other mate Dawkins could've given his argument a lot more credibility,by having the bottle to say "There isn't a God" rather than "There probably..isn't a God" You "Evolutionists", need to have the co Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

6:53pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Facewagon wrote:
It still seems you're confused about what biological evolution really is. We all know that different members of a species have different characteristics - some are faster than others, some are stronger, etc. Simply put, if organism A has a certain advantageous characteristic in certain circumstances (it may be a prey animal able to run faster than its peers) then it is more likely to be able to reproduce and pass on that genetic characteristic to its offspring, and they to theirs etc. As time goes on, the population with this characteristic grows larger and over a long enough timeline that characteristic can be generally attributed to the species rather than individuals or groups. This is all evolution is. There is no agenda, it's not a process to make a given species objectively and cumulatively "better", it's simply about adaptations and how they affect an organisms chances of reproducing.

If you want evidence of it, look no further than bacterial populations. You may have heard of the concern that bacteria are "becoming immune" to our antibiotics. Why do you think this happens? Because over time, bacteria immune to antibiotics form a significantly larger proportion of the population due to being more likely to reproduce than peers who are not immune. Evolution at work, happening around you - and inside you - every day.

With regard to your notion of "human nature" evolving, there are several points I'd make. Firstly, there is clear and obvious evidence of cultural evolution (separate from biological) that tie into this. For example, I don't believe that the first humans had an innate awareness that stealing is "wrong" before there was ever a concept of property and ownership. Secondly, as I mentioned above there is no agenda to evolution: it's not a flowchart running from dumb animal to philosopher king. If being a vicious, violent, self centred barsteward made it significantly less likely you would reproduce, we may - over many, many generations - begin to see this trait die out. Thirdly, human evolution is complicated by our own abilities to adapt, where cultural evolution and all that goes with it - not least of which is technology - allows us to adapt to situations artificially, to the point that biological evolution doesn't really come into play.
Well,I bow to your superior knowledge then Facewagon,but your mate Darwin went to his grave,not really sure if his theory was right or not,and your other mate Dawkins could've given his argument a lot more credibility,by having the bottle to say "There isn't a God" rather than "There probably..isn't a God"
You "Evolutionists", need to have the co
You "Evolutionists" need to have the courage of your convictions,if you want the World to believe you..personally,I don't.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: It still seems you're confused about what biological evolution really is. We all know that different members of a species have different characteristics - some are faster than others, some are stronger, etc. Simply put, if organism A has a certain advantageous characteristic in certain circumstances (it may be a prey animal able to run faster than its peers) then it is more likely to be able to reproduce and pass on that genetic characteristic to its offspring, and they to theirs etc. As time goes on, the population with this characteristic grows larger and over a long enough timeline that characteristic can be generally attributed to the species rather than individuals or groups. This is all evolution is. There is no agenda, it's not a process to make a given species objectively and cumulatively "better", it's simply about adaptations and how they affect an organisms chances of reproducing. If you want evidence of it, look no further than bacterial populations. You may have heard of the concern that bacteria are "becoming immune" to our antibiotics. Why do you think this happens? Because over time, bacteria immune to antibiotics form a significantly larger proportion of the population due to being more likely to reproduce than peers who are not immune. Evolution at work, happening around you - and inside you - every day. With regard to your notion of "human nature" evolving, there are several points I'd make. Firstly, there is clear and obvious evidence of cultural evolution (separate from biological) that tie into this. For example, I don't believe that the first humans had an innate awareness that stealing is "wrong" before there was ever a concept of property and ownership. Secondly, as I mentioned above there is no agenda to evolution: it's not a flowchart running from dumb animal to philosopher king. If being a vicious, violent, self centred barsteward made it significantly less likely you would reproduce, we may - over many, many generations - begin to see this trait die out. Thirdly, human evolution is complicated by our own abilities to adapt, where cultural evolution and all that goes with it - not least of which is technology - allows us to adapt to situations artificially, to the point that biological evolution doesn't really come into play.[/p][/quote]Well,I bow to your superior knowledge then Facewagon,but your mate Darwin went to his grave,not really sure if his theory was right or not,and your other mate Dawkins could've given his argument a lot more credibility,by having the bottle to say "There isn't a God" rather than "There probably..isn't a God" You "Evolutionists", need to have the co[/p][/quote]You "Evolutionists" need to have the courage of your convictions,if you want the World to believe you..personally,I don't. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

7:33pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Facewagon says...

Darwin was very certain of the validity of his work. Although Dawkins has never been ambiguous about his views, the existence of god cannot be proven nor disproven by scientific or philosophical reasoning, since the concept itself is supposed to be outside of human experience. So, the use of "probably" is appropriate.

Whether you "believe in" evolution or not makes no difference whatsoever to me. However, your original post claimed that human atrocities "severely test" evolution. I've shown that is not the case. To be honest, the existence of evil foes far more to challenge the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving deity - but that's an entirely different discussion.
Darwin was very certain of the validity of his work. Although Dawkins has never been ambiguous about his views, the existence of god cannot be proven nor disproven by scientific or philosophical reasoning, since the concept itself is supposed to be outside of human experience. So, the use of "probably" is appropriate. Whether you "believe in" evolution or not makes no difference whatsoever to me. However, your original post claimed that human atrocities "severely test" evolution. I've shown that is not the case. To be honest, the existence of evil foes far more to challenge the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving deity - but that's an entirely different discussion. Facewagon
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Facewagon wrote:
Darwin was very certain of the validity of his work. Although Dawkins has never been ambiguous about his views, the existence of god cannot be proven nor disproven by scientific or philosophical reasoning, since the concept itself is supposed to be outside of human experience. So, the use of "probably" is appropriate.

Whether you "believe in" evolution or not makes no difference whatsoever to me. However, your original post claimed that human atrocities "severely test" evolution. I've shown that is not the case. To be honest, the existence of evil foes far more to challenge the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving deity - but that's an entirely different discussion.
Well,correct me if I'm wrong,but the only evidence of evil committed in this world,appears to have been committed by man.. I'm not aware of any committed by a deity.
[quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: Darwin was very certain of the validity of his work. Although Dawkins has never been ambiguous about his views, the existence of god cannot be proven nor disproven by scientific or philosophical reasoning, since the concept itself is supposed to be outside of human experience. So, the use of "probably" is appropriate. Whether you "believe in" evolution or not makes no difference whatsoever to me. However, your original post claimed that human atrocities "severely test" evolution. I've shown that is not the case. To be honest, the existence of evil foes far more to challenge the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving deity - but that's an entirely different discussion.[/p][/quote]Well,correct me if I'm wrong,but the only evidence of evil committed in this world,appears to have been committed by man.. I'm not aware of any committed by a deity. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

8:14pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Facewagon says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Facewagon wrote:
Darwin was very certain of the validity of his work. Although Dawkins has never been ambiguous about his views, the existence of god cannot be proven nor disproven by scientific or philosophical reasoning, since the concept itself is supposed to be outside of human experience. So, the use of "probably" is appropriate.

Whether you "believe in" evolution or not makes no difference whatsoever to me. However, your original post claimed that human atrocities "severely test" evolution. I've shown that is not the case. To be honest, the existence of evil foes far more to challenge the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving deity - but that's an entirely different discussion.
Well,correct me if I'm wrong,but the only evidence of evil committed in this world,appears to have been committed by man.. I'm not aware of any committed by a deity.
Well, leaving aside some of god's old testament shenanigans, such as the wanton child murder in Egypt, the point is that there really shouldn't be human evil if god really is omniscient, omnipotent and loving. You've been talking about human nature - if man was created by god, god is responsible for that nature; either he deliberately created us with a tendency towards violence, or he was unable or unwilling to prevent it.

I've had enough of these discussions over the years to realise that they're utterly pointless. Nothing I say is going to change your mind and, short of producing verifiable evidence, the same is true in reverse. Shall we leave it there?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: Darwin was very certain of the validity of his work. Although Dawkins has never been ambiguous about his views, the existence of god cannot be proven nor disproven by scientific or philosophical reasoning, since the concept itself is supposed to be outside of human experience. So, the use of "probably" is appropriate. Whether you "believe in" evolution or not makes no difference whatsoever to me. However, your original post claimed that human atrocities "severely test" evolution. I've shown that is not the case. To be honest, the existence of evil foes far more to challenge the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving deity - but that's an entirely different discussion.[/p][/quote]Well,correct me if I'm wrong,but the only evidence of evil committed in this world,appears to have been committed by man.. I'm not aware of any committed by a deity.[/p][/quote]Well, leaving aside some of god's old testament shenanigans, such as the wanton child murder in Egypt, the point is that there really shouldn't be human evil if god really is omniscient, omnipotent and loving. You've been talking about human nature - if man was created by god, god is responsible for that nature; either he deliberately created us with a tendency towards violence, or he was unable or unwilling to prevent it. I've had enough of these discussions over the years to realise that they're utterly pointless. Nothing I say is going to change your mind and, short of producing verifiable evidence, the same is true in reverse. Shall we leave it there? Facewagon
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Facewagon wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Facewagon wrote:
Darwin was very certain of the validity of his work. Although Dawkins has never been ambiguous about his views, the existence of god cannot be proven nor disproven by scientific or philosophical reasoning, since the concept itself is supposed to be outside of human experience. So, the use of "probably" is appropriate.

Whether you "believe in" evolution or not makes no difference whatsoever to me. However, your original post claimed that human atrocities "severely test" evolution. I've shown that is not the case. To be honest, the existence of evil foes far more to challenge the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving deity - but that's an entirely different discussion.
Well,correct me if I'm wrong,but the only evidence of evil committed in this world,appears to have been committed by man.. I'm not aware of any committed by a deity.
Well, leaving aside some of god's old testament shenanigans, such as the wanton child murder in Egypt, the point is that there really shouldn't be human evil if god really is omniscient, omnipotent and loving. You've been talking about human nature - if man was created by god, god is responsible for that nature; either he deliberately created us with a tendency towards violence, or he was unable or unwilling to prevent it.

I've had enough of these discussions over the years to realise that they're utterly pointless. Nothing I say is going to change your mind and, short of producing verifiable evidence, the same is true in reverse. Shall we leave it there?
Ha ha,fair enough Face,otherwise,we will be getting into "What was there,before there was existence?"territory
, and that one always makes my head hurt! ;0)
[quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: Darwin was very certain of the validity of his work. Although Dawkins has never been ambiguous about his views, the existence of god cannot be proven nor disproven by scientific or philosophical reasoning, since the concept itself is supposed to be outside of human experience. So, the use of "probably" is appropriate. Whether you "believe in" evolution or not makes no difference whatsoever to me. However, your original post claimed that human atrocities "severely test" evolution. I've shown that is not the case. To be honest, the existence of evil foes far more to challenge the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving deity - but that's an entirely different discussion.[/p][/quote]Well,correct me if I'm wrong,but the only evidence of evil committed in this world,appears to have been committed by man.. I'm not aware of any committed by a deity.[/p][/quote]Well, leaving aside some of god's old testament shenanigans, such as the wanton child murder in Egypt, the point is that there really shouldn't be human evil if god really is omniscient, omnipotent and loving. You've been talking about human nature - if man was created by god, god is responsible for that nature; either he deliberately created us with a tendency towards violence, or he was unable or unwilling to prevent it. I've had enough of these discussions over the years to realise that they're utterly pointless. Nothing I say is going to change your mind and, short of producing verifiable evidence, the same is true in reverse. Shall we leave it there?[/p][/quote]Ha ha,fair enough Face,otherwise,we will be getting into "What was there,before there was existence?"territory , and that one always makes my head hurt! ;0) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 2

10:09pm Wed 27 Aug 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
If you re-read your first post you'll see you've now contradicted yourself. And it's 'innate'. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution, or not?
No I don't believe in Darwinism, and taking a pot at my spelling is a cheap shot,and proves my point about human nature..Richard Thompson wouldn't approve,I'm sure!
As for contradicting myself,and accusing me of being confused,I think you will find that its you who is confusing evolution,with education,which brings me back to my original point,human nature hasn't evolved,because we are now supposedly educated enough to know better,and to have learnt all the lessons of history,but each generation still thinks it knows better than the last..so theres absolutely no "evolution" there I'm afraid to say.
Facewagon has now made some excellent points which I won't repeat. I'm not making a personal point about your spelling - but when someone spells a common word wrongly it's possible to infer something about their general level of education. The fact that you're trying to refute a theory which you've plainly demonstrated you don't actually understand supports the view that you don't know enough about it to be able to be able to argue on it one way or the other.

Out of interest, if you reject Darwinism, what is your explanation for the development of bacterial resistance, or the existence of fossil records going back billions of years?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: If you re-read your first post you'll see you've now contradicted yourself. And it's 'innate'. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution, or not?[/p][/quote]No I don't believe in Darwinism, and taking a pot at my spelling is a cheap shot,and proves my point about human nature..Richard Thompson wouldn't approve,I'm sure! As for contradicting myself,and accusing me of being confused,I think you will find that its you who is confusing evolution,with education,which brings me back to my original point,human nature hasn't evolved,because we are now supposedly educated enough to know better,and to have learnt all the lessons of history,but each generation still thinks it knows better than the last..so theres absolutely no "evolution" there I'm afraid to say.[/p][/quote]Facewagon has now made some excellent points which I won't repeat. I'm not making a personal point about your spelling - but when someone spells a common word wrongly it's possible to infer something about their general level of education. The fact that you're trying to refute a theory which you've plainly demonstrated you don't actually understand supports the view that you don't know enough about it to be able to be able to argue on it one way or the other. Out of interest, if you reject Darwinism, what is your explanation for the development of bacterial resistance, or the existence of fossil records going back billions of years? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 2

10:15pm Wed 27 Aug 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Incidentally, I don't know what Richard Thompson's views on evolution are but I do know he wrote some **** fine songs :-)
Incidentally, I don't know what Richard Thompson's views on evolution are but I do know he wrote some **** fine songs :-) WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 3

2:45pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Positively4thStreet says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
If you re-read your first post you'll see you've now contradicted yourself. And it's 'innate'. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution, or not?
No I don't believe in Darwinism, and taking a pot at my spelling is a cheap shot,and proves my point about human nature..Richard Thompson wouldn't approve,I'm sure!
As for contradicting myself,and accusing me of being confused,I think you will find that its you who is confusing evolution,with education,which brings me back to my original point,human nature hasn't evolved,because we are now supposedly educated enough to know better,and to have learnt all the lessons of history,but each generation still thinks it knows better than the last..so theres absolutely no "evolution" there I'm afraid to say.
Facewagon has now made some excellent points which I won't repeat. I'm not making a personal point about your spelling - but when someone spells a common word wrongly it's possible to infer something about their general level of education. The fact that you're trying to refute a theory which you've plainly demonstrated you don't actually understand supports the view that you don't know enough about it to be able to be able to argue on it one way or the other.

Out of interest, if you reject Darwinism, what is your explanation for the development of bacterial resistance, or the existence of fossil records going back billions of years?
Thanks for your patronising view of my level of education Walking, you don't have to be educated to be intelligent though,I've met a few stupid uni grads, over the years.
As for all the bacterial cods wallop,its all just part of God's plans mate,you just need to accept it,and you know as well as I do,that the fossil record,(despite all the protestations of charlatans trying to make names for them selves) only shows up definitive,rather than transitional species.
If we all just crawled out of the primordial soup,how did we miraculously then develop into a myriad of definitive species,far in advance of anything required to survive in that environment; and in our own case,with senses capable of appreciating beauty(how would we know?)and music(why would we need it?)
When Dawkins manages to gather together the required elements,and demonstrate the creation of life in a test tube,then I will subscribe to his outlandish and patronising view of the world.
You are right about Thompson though. ;0)
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: If you re-read your first post you'll see you've now contradicted yourself. And it's 'innate'. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution, or not?[/p][/quote]No I don't believe in Darwinism, and taking a pot at my spelling is a cheap shot,and proves my point about human nature..Richard Thompson wouldn't approve,I'm sure! As for contradicting myself,and accusing me of being confused,I think you will find that its you who is confusing evolution,with education,which brings me back to my original point,human nature hasn't evolved,because we are now supposedly educated enough to know better,and to have learnt all the lessons of history,but each generation still thinks it knows better than the last..so theres absolutely no "evolution" there I'm afraid to say.[/p][/quote]Facewagon has now made some excellent points which I won't repeat. I'm not making a personal point about your spelling - but when someone spells a common word wrongly it's possible to infer something about their general level of education. The fact that you're trying to refute a theory which you've plainly demonstrated you don't actually understand supports the view that you don't know enough about it to be able to be able to argue on it one way or the other. Out of interest, if you reject Darwinism, what is your explanation for the development of bacterial resistance, or the existence of fossil records going back billions of years?[/p][/quote]Thanks for your patronising view of my level of education Walking, you don't have to be educated to be intelligent though,I've met a few stupid uni grads, over the years. As for all the bacterial cods wallop,its all just part of God's plans mate,you just need to accept it,and you know as well as I do,that the fossil record,(despite all the protestations of charlatans trying to make names for them selves) only shows up definitive,rather than transitional species. If we all just crawled out of the primordial soup,how did we miraculously then develop into a myriad of definitive species,far in advance of anything required to survive in that environment; and in our own case,with senses capable of appreciating beauty(how would we know?)and music(why would we need it?) When Dawkins manages to gather together the required elements,and demonstrate the creation of life in a test tube,then I will subscribe to his outlandish and patronising view of the world. You are right about Thompson though. ;0) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Positively4thStreet says...

PS..the word Innate,is about as common as the word,Sententious.. that's why you'd know better than me.
PS..the word Innate,is about as common as the word,Sententious.. that's why you'd know better than me. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

2:35am Fri 29 Aug 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
If you re-read your first post you'll see you've now contradicted yourself. And it's 'innate'. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution, or not?
No I don't believe in Darwinism, and taking a pot at my spelling is a cheap shot,and proves my point about human nature..Richard Thompson wouldn't approve,I'm sure!
As for contradicting myself,and accusing me of being confused,I think you will find that its you who is confusing evolution,with education,which brings me back to my original point,human nature hasn't evolved,because we are now supposedly educated enough to know better,and to have learnt all the lessons of history,but each generation still thinks it knows better than the last..so theres absolutely no "evolution" there I'm afraid to say.
Facewagon has now made some excellent points which I won't repeat. I'm not making a personal point about your spelling - but when someone spells a common word wrongly it's possible to infer something about their general level of education. The fact that you're trying to refute a theory which you've plainly demonstrated you don't actually understand supports the view that you don't know enough about it to be able to be able to argue on it one way or the other.

Out of interest, if you reject Darwinism, what is your explanation for the development of bacterial resistance, or the existence of fossil records going back billions of years?
Thanks for your patronising view of my level of education Walking, you don't have to be educated to be intelligent though,I've met a few stupid uni grads, over the years.
As for all the bacterial cods wallop,its all just part of God's plans mate,you just need to accept it,and you know as well as I do,that the fossil record,(despite all the protestations of charlatans trying to make names for them selves) only shows up definitive,rather than transitional species.
If we all just crawled out of the primordial soup,how did we miraculously then develop into a myriad of definitive species,far in advance of anything required to survive in that environment; and in our own case,with senses capable of appreciating beauty(how would we know?)and music(why would we need it?)
When Dawkins manages to gather together the required elements,and demonstrate the creation of life in a test tube,then I will subscribe to his outlandish and patronising view of the world.
You are right about Thompson though. ;0)
I'm afraid this whole post is a logical fallacy-arama.

So bacteria developing resistance isn't evolution, it's 'God's plan mate'. The theory of evolution predicts that organisms like bacteria, which reproduce very rapidly, will respond to dangers and stimuli in their environment, and over many generations those which are best able to withstand the onslaught of antibiotics will pass their characteristics on until we start to see strains which can withstand the drug. This is precisely what we are seeing. You posit that it's 'simply God's plan'. You don't offer any evidence for this claim: what you assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The fossil record abounds with transitional species. It's a creationist mantra that it doesn't, but they are everywhere. Try these for starters: http://evolution.ber
keley.edu/evosite/li
nes/IAtransitional.s
html

Your 'crawled out of the primordial soup' comment is a strawman argument - I didn't say it and nor does any scientist. By saying this you simply highlight again your ignorance of what the theory of evolution states. You might believe you understand it, but you demonstrably don't. 'How did we miraculously then develop into a myriad of definitive species?' There is no miracle involved - just descent with modification and an almost inconceivable amount of time.

You don't have to be educated to be intelligent, that's true. But I haven't questioned your intelligence or attempted to measure it. What I am able to observe, directly from what you've said, is that you are vehemently disagreeing with, and misapplying, a theory which you plainly don't actually understand. I'm assuming that you have the intellect to understand it, but it's clear from the ways in which you critique it that it hasn't been taught effectively to you. I'm not being patronising when I point this out. (If someone told me I couldn't speak Arabic because I've not been taught it, I wouldn't take offence - they'd be right. I might have picked up a few words from my neighbour, but I'm probably pronouncing them wrong.) You could, therefore, spend some time researching it until you do understand it properly - but you would need to want to do that. You will find that many established churches accept evolution and even celebrate it as part of 'God's plan'. Perhaps that might become your position, if you are prepared to put some genuine work in. If you continue to attack evolution without making any more effort to understanding what it says, that would be disappointing. The reason I'm even bothering to spend time writing all this is because I think from what I've seen in you other posts you are an intellectually curious person (with, additionally, fine taste in music) and you'd actually get pleasure from learning it.

Finally, evolution does not purport to explain how life began. It only describes how life on the planet has evolved since.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: If you re-read your first post you'll see you've now contradicted yourself. And it's 'innate'. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution, or not?[/p][/quote]No I don't believe in Darwinism, and taking a pot at my spelling is a cheap shot,and proves my point about human nature..Richard Thompson wouldn't approve,I'm sure! As for contradicting myself,and accusing me of being confused,I think you will find that its you who is confusing evolution,with education,which brings me back to my original point,human nature hasn't evolved,because we are now supposedly educated enough to know better,and to have learnt all the lessons of history,but each generation still thinks it knows better than the last..so theres absolutely no "evolution" there I'm afraid to say.[/p][/quote]Facewagon has now made some excellent points which I won't repeat. I'm not making a personal point about your spelling - but when someone spells a common word wrongly it's possible to infer something about their general level of education. The fact that you're trying to refute a theory which you've plainly demonstrated you don't actually understand supports the view that you don't know enough about it to be able to be able to argue on it one way or the other. Out of interest, if you reject Darwinism, what is your explanation for the development of bacterial resistance, or the existence of fossil records going back billions of years?[/p][/quote]Thanks for your patronising view of my level of education Walking, you don't have to be educated to be intelligent though,I've met a few stupid uni grads, over the years. As for all the bacterial cods wallop,its all just part of God's plans mate,you just need to accept it,and you know as well as I do,that the fossil record,(despite all the protestations of charlatans trying to make names for them selves) only shows up definitive,rather than transitional species. If we all just crawled out of the primordial soup,how did we miraculously then develop into a myriad of definitive species,far in advance of anything required to survive in that environment; and in our own case,with senses capable of appreciating beauty(how would we know?)and music(why would we need it?) When Dawkins manages to gather together the required elements,and demonstrate the creation of life in a test tube,then I will subscribe to his outlandish and patronising view of the world. You are right about Thompson though. ;0)[/p][/quote]I'm afraid this whole post is a logical fallacy-arama. So bacteria developing resistance isn't evolution, it's 'God's plan mate'. The theory of evolution predicts that organisms like bacteria, which reproduce very rapidly, will respond to dangers and stimuli in their environment, and over many generations those which are best able to withstand the onslaught of antibiotics will pass their characteristics on until we start to see strains which can withstand the drug. This is precisely what we are seeing. You posit that it's 'simply God's plan'. You don't offer any evidence for this claim: what you assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The fossil record abounds with transitional species. It's a creationist mantra that it doesn't, but they are everywhere. Try these for starters: http://evolution.ber keley.edu/evosite/li nes/IAtransitional.s html Your 'crawled out of the primordial soup' comment is a strawman argument - I didn't say it and nor does any scientist. By saying this you simply highlight again your ignorance of what the theory of evolution states. You might believe you understand it, but you demonstrably don't. 'How did we miraculously then develop into a myriad of definitive species?' There is no miracle involved - just descent with modification and an almost inconceivable amount of time. You don't have to be educated to be intelligent, that's true. But I haven't questioned your intelligence or attempted to measure it. What I am able to observe, directly from what you've said, is that you are vehemently disagreeing with, and misapplying, a theory which you plainly don't actually understand. I'm assuming that you have the intellect to understand it, but it's clear from the ways in which you critique it that it hasn't been taught effectively to you. I'm not being patronising when I point this out. (If someone told me I couldn't speak Arabic because I've not been taught it, I wouldn't take offence - they'd be right. I might have picked up a few words from my neighbour, but I'm probably pronouncing them wrong.) You could, therefore, spend some time researching it until you do understand it properly - but you would need to want to do that. You will find that many established churches accept evolution and even celebrate it as part of 'God's plan'. Perhaps that might become your position, if you are prepared to put some genuine work in. If you continue to attack evolution without making any more effort to understanding what it says, that would be disappointing. The reason I'm even bothering to spend time writing all this is because I think from what I've seen in you other posts you are an intellectually curious person (with, additionally, fine taste in music) and you'd actually get pleasure from learning it. Finally, evolution does not purport to explain how life began. It only describes how life on the planet has evolved since. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 0

8:03am Fri 29 Aug 14

Positively4thStreet says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
If you re-read your first post you'll see you've now contradicted yourself. And it's 'innate'. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution, or not?
No I don't believe in Darwinism, and taking a pot at my spelling is a cheap shot,and proves my point about human nature..Richard Thompson wouldn't approve,I'm sure!
As for contradicting myself,and accusing me of being confused,I think you will find that its you who is confusing evolution,with education,which brings me back to my original point,human nature hasn't evolved,because we are now supposedly educated enough to know better,and to have learnt all the lessons of history,but each generation still thinks it knows better than the last..so theres absolutely no "evolution" there I'm afraid to say.
Facewagon has now made some excellent points which I won't repeat. I'm not making a personal point about your spelling - but when someone spells a common word wrongly it's possible to infer something about their general level of education. The fact that you're trying to refute a theory which you've plainly demonstrated you don't actually understand supports the view that you don't know enough about it to be able to be able to argue on it one way or the other.

Out of interest, if you reject Darwinism, what is your explanation for the development of bacterial resistance, or the existence of fossil records going back billions of years?
Thanks for your patronising view of my level of education Walking, you don't have to be educated to be intelligent though,I've met a few stupid uni grads, over the years.
As for all the bacterial cods wallop,its all just part of God's plans mate,you just need to accept it,and you know as well as I do,that the fossil record,(despite all the protestations of charlatans trying to make names for them selves) only shows up definitive,rather than transitional species.
If we all just crawled out of the primordial soup,how did we miraculously then develop into a myriad of definitive species,far in advance of anything required to survive in that environment; and in our own case,with senses capable of appreciating beauty(how would we know?)and music(why would we need it?)
When Dawkins manages to gather together the required elements,and demonstrate the creation of life in a test tube,then I will subscribe to his outlandish and patronising view of the world.
You are right about Thompson though. ;0)
I'm afraid this whole post is a logical fallacy-arama.

So bacteria developing resistance isn't evolution, it's 'God's plan mate'. The theory of evolution predicts that organisms like bacteria, which reproduce very rapidly, will respond to dangers and stimuli in their environment, and over many generations those which are best able to withstand the onslaught of antibiotics will pass their characteristics on until we start to see strains which can withstand the drug. This is precisely what we are seeing. You posit that it's 'simply God's plan'. You don't offer any evidence for this claim: what you assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The fossil record abounds with transitional species. It's a creationist mantra that it doesn't, but they are everywhere. Try these for starters: http://evolution.ber

keley.edu/evosite/li

nes/IAtransitional.s

html

Your 'crawled out of the primordial soup' comment is a strawman argument - I didn't say it and nor does any scientist. By saying this you simply highlight again your ignorance of what the theory of evolution states. You might believe you understand it, but you demonstrably don't. 'How did we miraculously then develop into a myriad of definitive species?' There is no miracle involved - just descent with modification and an almost inconceivable amount of time.

You don't have to be educated to be intelligent, that's true. But I haven't questioned your intelligence or attempted to measure it. What I am able to observe, directly from what you've said, is that you are vehemently disagreeing with, and misapplying, a theory which you plainly don't actually understand. I'm assuming that you have the intellect to understand it, but it's clear from the ways in which you critique it that it hasn't been taught effectively to you. I'm not being patronising when I point this out. (If someone told me I couldn't speak Arabic because I've not been taught it, I wouldn't take offence - they'd be right. I might have picked up a few words from my neighbour, but I'm probably pronouncing them wrong.) You could, therefore, spend some time researching it until you do understand it properly - but you would need to want to do that. You will find that many established churches accept evolution and even celebrate it as part of 'God's plan'. Perhaps that might become your position, if you are prepared to put some genuine work in. If you continue to attack evolution without making any more effort to understanding what it says, that would be disappointing. The reason I'm even bothering to spend time writing all this is because I think from what I've seen in you other posts you are an intellectually curious person (with, additionally, fine taste in music) and you'd actually get pleasure from learning it.

Finally, evolution does not purport to explain how life began. It only describes how life on the planet has evolved since.
Good try,got you worried though hasn't it? ;0)
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: If you re-read your first post you'll see you've now contradicted yourself. And it's 'innate'. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution, or not?[/p][/quote]No I don't believe in Darwinism, and taking a pot at my spelling is a cheap shot,and proves my point about human nature..Richard Thompson wouldn't approve,I'm sure! As for contradicting myself,and accusing me of being confused,I think you will find that its you who is confusing evolution,with education,which brings me back to my original point,human nature hasn't evolved,because we are now supposedly educated enough to know better,and to have learnt all the lessons of history,but each generation still thinks it knows better than the last..so theres absolutely no "evolution" there I'm afraid to say.[/p][/quote]Facewagon has now made some excellent points which I won't repeat. I'm not making a personal point about your spelling - but when someone spells a common word wrongly it's possible to infer something about their general level of education. The fact that you're trying to refute a theory which you've plainly demonstrated you don't actually understand supports the view that you don't know enough about it to be able to be able to argue on it one way or the other. Out of interest, if you reject Darwinism, what is your explanation for the development of bacterial resistance, or the existence of fossil records going back billions of years?[/p][/quote]Thanks for your patronising view of my level of education Walking, you don't have to be educated to be intelligent though,I've met a few stupid uni grads, over the years. As for all the bacterial cods wallop,its all just part of God's plans mate,you just need to accept it,and you know as well as I do,that the fossil record,(despite all the protestations of charlatans trying to make names for them selves) only shows up definitive,rather than transitional species. If we all just crawled out of the primordial soup,how did we miraculously then develop into a myriad of definitive species,far in advance of anything required to survive in that environment; and in our own case,with senses capable of appreciating beauty(how would we know?)and music(why would we need it?) When Dawkins manages to gather together the required elements,and demonstrate the creation of life in a test tube,then I will subscribe to his outlandish and patronising view of the world. You are right about Thompson though. ;0)[/p][/quote]I'm afraid this whole post is a logical fallacy-arama. So bacteria developing resistance isn't evolution, it's 'God's plan mate'. The theory of evolution predicts that organisms like bacteria, which reproduce very rapidly, will respond to dangers and stimuli in their environment, and over many generations those which are best able to withstand the onslaught of antibiotics will pass their characteristics on until we start to see strains which can withstand the drug. This is precisely what we are seeing. You posit that it's 'simply God's plan'. You don't offer any evidence for this claim: what you assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The fossil record abounds with transitional species. It's a creationist mantra that it doesn't, but they are everywhere. Try these for starters: http://evolution.ber keley.edu/evosite/li nes/IAtransitional.s html Your 'crawled out of the primordial soup' comment is a strawman argument - I didn't say it and nor does any scientist. By saying this you simply highlight again your ignorance of what the theory of evolution states. You might believe you understand it, but you demonstrably don't. 'How did we miraculously then develop into a myriad of definitive species?' There is no miracle involved - just descent with modification and an almost inconceivable amount of time. You don't have to be educated to be intelligent, that's true. But I haven't questioned your intelligence or attempted to measure it. What I am able to observe, directly from what you've said, is that you are vehemently disagreeing with, and misapplying, a theory which you plainly don't actually understand. I'm assuming that you have the intellect to understand it, but it's clear from the ways in which you critique it that it hasn't been taught effectively to you. I'm not being patronising when I point this out. (If someone told me I couldn't speak Arabic because I've not been taught it, I wouldn't take offence - they'd be right. I might have picked up a few words from my neighbour, but I'm probably pronouncing them wrong.) You could, therefore, spend some time researching it until you do understand it properly - but you would need to want to do that. You will find that many established churches accept evolution and even celebrate it as part of 'God's plan'. Perhaps that might become your position, if you are prepared to put some genuine work in. If you continue to attack evolution without making any more effort to understanding what it says, that would be disappointing. The reason I'm even bothering to spend time writing all this is because I think from what I've seen in you other posts you are an intellectually curious person (with, additionally, fine taste in music) and you'd actually get pleasure from learning it. Finally, evolution does not purport to explain how life began. It only describes how life on the planet has evolved since.[/p][/quote]Good try,got you worried though hasn't it? ;0) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree