The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[Walker]

What's an IDer?

[davidm]

The cause is the environment, if the environment doesn't change there is no change to the organism. (An environment also includes whatever predator prey relationship there is.)

How naive of you. imputing a single cause is childish.
The environment can stay the same and living things still change, not that they are distinct from the environment.
You are shooting yourself in the foot, talking nonsense.

Can you give me an example of an organism that has changed where its environment has not changed at all?

Here.

[Arising_uk]

What's an IDer?

Creationist it is then.

[Walker]

What's an IDer?

Creationist it is then.

So, it’s about the proper labeling. A place for everything and by God everything in its place. Not too complex. Black and white bean counting crossed with a world of labels and just trim out what doesn’t fit the mold. Orderly and punctually spreading infrastructure and timetables through the bush. Such an evolution must have been necessary in its day, since obviously everything has an objective purpose as cause for existence. Empires crumble, the old ways are over-run with progress, the son now sits on the brutish umpire.

[Arising_uk]

Well it is supposed to be a philosophy forum.

Are you saying you are not a creationist or an IDer then?

If not care to answer the question you are so carefully avoiding, which doubts of Darwin were you referring to in this thread about his Theory of Evolution?

[Walker]

Roger the confirmation of the label analysis, that is, mine.

And, I've already addressed your Darwin concerns.

Now you can sleep undisturbed.

What would you do without question marks, one wonders.

You did miss the key phrase in the course of your trudge, btw.

... everything has an objective purpose as cause for existence.

[Arising_uk]

Roger the confirmation of the label analysis, that is, mine. ...

Which one, a creationist or an IDer?

And, I've already addressed your Darwin concerns. ...

Where?

Now you can sleep undisturbed.

Always could.

What would you do without question marks, one wonders.

Be a dogmatist.

You did miss the key phrase, btw.

... everything has an objective purpose as cause for existence.

Said who?

Does this mean your 'God' has no objective purpose or that 'it' doesn't exist, if not what could be objective for your 'God'?

[Walker]

You know, as a labeler it's up to you to keep up. You keep creating a world and insisting that others step into it.

[davidm]

You know, as a labeler it's up to you to keep up. You keep creating a world and insisting that others step into it.

I think you've got this backwards.

[Walker]

That would mean you're wrong.

[davidm]

No, you're wrong.

Well, this certainly is a stimulating discussion.

[thedoc]

Can you give me an example of an organism that has changed where its environment has not changed at all?

Here.

Wrong, the environment has changed, the other bacteria have gotten better and forced the whole population to change. The environment includes those of the same species that have changed and the whole population changes to keep up. The environment is not just the external conditions but the species itself, also.

[davidm]

Can you give me an example of an organism that has changed where its environment has not changed at all?

Here.

Wrong, the environment has changed, the other bacteria have gotten better and forced the whole population to change. The environment includes those of the same species that have changed and the whole population changes to keep up. The environment is not just the external conditions but the species itself, also.

Well, you can say that the whole environment includes the organisms and if the organisms change, then the environment has changed. You can say that if you want, but it's not how biologists define environmental change. That is the whole point of the experiment to which I linked. Subpopulations of bacteria are getting fitter (evolving) even though the external environment is unchanged. So it's not wrong.

If this is not what you were looking for, what did you mean when you asked:

Can you give me an example of an organism that has changed where its environment has not changed at all?

Under the definition of "change" you hold to, your question is meaningless. You can rewrite it to say, "Can you give me an example of an organism that has changed when it has not changed at all?" How could anyone possibly give you an example of this?

[Arising_uk]

You know, as a labeler it's up to you to keep up. You keep creating a world and insisting that others step into it.

Er!? Philosophy forum and all that.

So you accept that ID is just Creationism dressed-up?

Any comment on this,

"... everything has an objective purpose as cause for existence."

Said who?

Does this mean your 'God' has no objective purpose or that 'it' doesn't exist, if not what could be objective for your 'God'?

[Hobbes' Choice]

The cause is the environment, if the environment doesn't change there is no change to the organism. (An environment also includes whatever predator prey relationship there is.)

How naive of you. imputing a single cause is childish.
The environment can stay the same and living things still change, not that they are distinct from the environment.
You are shooting yourself in the foot, talking nonsense.

Can you give me an example of an organism that has changed where its environment has not changed at all?

Can you give me a single instance of the environment NOT changing?