Devolution? How?

p-dog, In Darwin's last work,(unfinished , but published in 1975 by Stauffer (ed) ) he opened the discussion for hierarchical selection, and it was all based upon the concept of mutual care and group nurturing of young as an adaptive scheme and he thought that it conferred a selective advantage upon an entire population.
However,Im still not sure where this threads going.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1874195#1874195.

Is that any good as irony George?

For a long drive in the short bus. The bus to New Zealand. The bus for future presidents.







But if we're really going to talk retrograde evolution, we've got to talk parasites. Why go from a free-living winged insect to a lowly louse? 'Cuz it works, that's why.

p-dog, Im not sure that "science" is an objective of this thread.

one man's science is another man's seance

'non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" fr William of Occam

Then how to explain reality television?

those are entiae

If you are referring to the vatican part - yes. Ironic and true. However Gresham's law still holds. Bad arguments and sophistry in threads such as these drive out reasoned approaches to the truth.

georgeob
Of course you realize that opinion you share with our English correspondent is only valid as long as youre the last post. The next guy piling on will trump what you consider a reasoned approach.
Historically, at least in the US, timber is quite correct. The Catholic Church was first to adopt a theistic evolution approach in schools well before the states began to have their "NO EVOLUTION" laws challenged between 1925 and the 1960's.True,Pius XI did have a "special evolution" doctrine until Vatican II
Remember that, until about 1920, with the first reigns being pulled on the Charles Taze Russells and the George Macready Price's, we had as some are fond of calling "24/7 teaching" except, at that time it was teaching all anti-evolution in the embryonic public schools.


PS, its bad form to engage in stealth name calling (like an engineer reviewing another engineers work on the same project) without informing the party being criticized . You should PM timber and give him a chance to respond. Spendi cant help it but Id expect more from you. After all, itsa canon of ethics thing

My original post

So far from the non-nonbelievers we have the question from Mama as to what devolution might be, some nifty humor from Neo, and the assertion from Real Life that devolution is observable, so no faith is necessary, but evolution is not observable, and requires faith.

From the non-believers, we have some variety as well

Definitive progress is at hand, and I soldier boldly on, into the great wide open

My original post

So far from the non-nonbelievers we have the question from Mama as to what devolution might be, some nifty humor from Neo, and the assertion from Real Life that devolution is observable, so no faith is necessary, but evolution is not observable, and requires faith.

From the non-believers, we have some variety as well.

Definitive progress is at hand, and I soldier boldly on, into the great wide open

I really don't see the connection with Timber to which you refer. Was it in the referenced thread? Even there he made a point comnsistent with Spendius' argument (with which I agreed - though I found the part about the Vatican 'approaching academic integrity , etc. a bit odd and inverted.)

My reference to Gresham's law referred to the persistent degeneration of the dispute here to a mind-numbing and basically meaningless near encounter between biblical literalists and self-appointed advocates of science who persistently ignore the limits of science itself.

The Good Money,The Bad Money, & The Ugly Money
A Fist Full Of Dalliances
For A Few Dillys More
.
.
.
.
.
.

Careful with that. Farmerman is a Geologist and Chemist. No sense of humor at all!!!

Well, maybe a little.

georgeob. Duhh. You use his thread as a basis to feel self congratulatory in a fashion that omits the "other thread". Id call that "stealth". Its obvious that you and Spendi both miss the historical context.

In this area , its true, I have no sense of humor. I find it terribly curious how the anti-evolutionists attempt to squeeze a wee bit of science into their worldview in order to "legitimize it". Why not just let the mantle of scientific objectivity be dropped, cause its meither honest nor true.
However, IMO,Even though most of its dogma is balogna, at least the Catholic Church has been a voice that was mostly responsible for the evolution of Muchof Christianity's responses to science, and evolution in particular.

The issue of the present thread is one where , over and over its quietly being implied that ones personal Christian revelation is superior to all others. Some of us just dont give a rats ass who you believe in, just dont go around hurting people in the name ofyour Gods.

This week is the big festival of the Bahai,I imagine that a few dozen will be imprisoned in Iran and otherwise called kooks by the Evangelical Christians.

PS, when we use Greshams Law out of its narrow fields of application (as chumly has snuck by ) , we are in danger of summoning Pinto's Law.