The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[Hobbes' Choice]

...forever the fucking idiot! I mean YOU though Trump's one too!

You seemed to have conveniently neglected to address the points in my post, coward.

240 years of History and what has the USA achieved??? Donald fucking Trump.

Really!! That's all they achieved!! If they converted your brains to plywood you'd be at least twice as intelligent.

Yes, admit it that is where you are. A state in turmoil. More prisoners that anywhere on earth. An epidemic of police killing black people. Racial hatred. Declining economy. Burning more oil than anyone on earth and denying the climate change. Billions of acres of monoculture.
And who do you chose to get it right? A fucking fascist psychopath.

[Hobbes' Choice]

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.

Thanks you have just proven my point. An unchanging environment where bacteria are increasing in fitness.
You really should learn to read a bit better.

What you might also want to take into account that the ONLY non changing environment is of the sort the article is an example of: AN ARTIFICIAL one!!

Because in nature there is no unchanging environment.

I get the feeling that you won't get this, but you have made a complete arse of yourself. You add another example of my theory that Americans have deficiencies in thinking. You are a victim of the Twinkie diet.

[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.

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'?

Sho 'nuff. The labels are your God in your world, comprehension of which is subject to your limitations, just as your notions of physicality are limited by incarnation and blocked capacity. Any honest wanker not bent by the agenda of cramming comprehension into a narrow range reflected by the labeling can be mesmerized by, and even appreciative of, the motion of the ocean, however any scientist who has not yet corrupted himself into a dogmatist will move beyond and into the examination of his doubts, the place for understanding and not acolyte-like parroting. Meaning is discovered, not assigned, and the truth of the meaning is whether or not it accords with reality. Now for a bleat of the familiar refrain.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Sho 'nuff. The labels are your God in your world, comprehension of which is subject to your limitations, just as your notions of physicality are limited by incarnation and blocked capacity. Any honest wanker not bent by the agenda of cramming comprehension into a narrow range reflected by the labeling can be mesmerized by, and even appreciative of, the motion of the ocean, however any scientist who has not yet corrupted himself into a dogmatist will move beyond and into the examination of his doubts, the place for understanding and not acolyte-like parroting. Meaning is discovered, not assigned, and the truth of the meaning is whether or not it accords with reality. Now for a bleat of the familiar refrain.

I never read so much hot air that was so devoid of meaning. You deserve a prize.

The Order of the Waffle.

[Walker]

Sho 'nuff. The labels are your God in your world, comprehension of which is subject to your limitations, just as your notions of physicality are limited by incarnation and blocked capacity. Any honest wanker not bent by the agenda of cramming comprehension into a narrow range reflected by the labeling can be mesmerized by, and even appreciative of, the motion of the ocean, however any scientist who has not yet corrupted himself into a dogmatist will move beyond and into the examination of his doubts, the place for understanding and not acolyte-like parroting. Meaning is discovered, not assigned, and the truth of the meaning is whether or not it accords with reality. Now for a bleat of the familiar refrain.

I never read so much hot air that was so devoid of meaning. You deserve a prize.

The Order of the Waffle.

Minus the ground for assignation, understanding requires one step beyond into discovery.

[davidm]

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

Here.

Thanks you have just proven my point. An unchanging environment where bacteria are increasing in fitness.
You really should learn to read a bit better.

What you might also want to take into account that the ONLY non changing environment is of the sort the article is an example of: AN ARTIFICIAL one!!

Because in nature there is no unchanging environment.

I get the feeling that you won't get this, but you have made a complete arse of yourself. You add another example of my theory that Americans have deficiencies in thinking. You are a victim of the Twinkie diet.

Note, first, that thedoc asked: "Can you give me an example of an organism that has changed where its environment has not changed at all?" He didn't specify whether the environment was natural or artificial, now did he?

But why do you think they carried out this experiment in the first place? Because, in fact, there are natural environments that are stable and unchanging over long periods of time. Here is what Richard Dawkins wrote about this in The Blind Watchmaker:

If the conditions in which a lineage of animals lives remain constant; say it is dry and hot and has been so without a break for 100 generations, evolution in that lineage is likely to come to a halt, at least as far as adaptations to temperatures and humidity are concerned. The animals will become as well fitted as they can be to local conditions. This doesn't mean that they couldn't be completely redesigned to be even better. It does mean that they can't improve themselves by any small (and therefore likely) evolutionary step: none of their immediate neighbors in the local equivalents of 'biomorph space' would do any better.

The experiment conducted with bacteria appears to show that Dawkins was wrong about there being no further evolutionary changes in a stable environment, but that's beside the point for the purpose of this reply to you. As everyone can now see, YOU are wrong in stating that there are no natural unchanging environments!

Why don't you email Dawkins and insult him, instead of me?

You have made an utter fool of yourself. No doubt not the first time.

[Arising_uk]

Sho 'nuff. ...

You know one of the hallmarks of the interweeble or nut if you prefer is a complete inability to answer sentences ending with question marks. That or that they are just trolls.

The labels are your God in your world, comprehension of which is subject to your limitations, just as your notions of physicality are limited by incarnation and blocked capacity. ...

This from a creationist.

Any honest wanker not bent by the agenda of cramming comprehension into a narrow range reflected by the labeling can be mesmerized by, and even appreciative of, the motion of the ocean, however any scientist who has not yet corrupted himself into a dogmatist will move beyond and into the examination of his doubts, the place for understanding and not acolyte-like parroting. ...

So what were Darwin's doubts?

And whilst we're at it what doubts do you have about creationism or intelligent design?

Meaning is discovered, not assigned, and the truth of the meaning is whether or not it accords with reality. ...

And in this reality can you show me your 'God'?

Now for a bleat of the familiar refrain.

Baa!

[Walker]

Taxonomy God has a more modern ring than God of the Labels.

Did you ever learn the breakdown and classifications when lining up the ducks in a row?

[davidm]

Taxonomy God has a more modern ring than God of the Labels.

Did you ever learn the breakdown and classifications when lining up the ducks in a row?

Do you have anything even passingly coherent to say? Or shall we need a nonsense translator?

[uwot]

Taxonomy God has a more modern ring than God of the Labels.

Did you ever learn the breakdown and classifications when lining up the ducks in a row?

Do you have anything even passingly coherent to say? Or shall we need a nonsense translator?

I'm surprised Arising hasn't outed Walker as a bot. Whaddya reckon, Arising? Could a human being successfully negotiate any social environment using only gibberish?

[Dubious]

You seemed to have conveniently neglected to address the points in my post, coward.

240 years of History and what has the USA achieved??? Donald fucking Trump.

Really!! That's all they achieved!! If they converted your brains to plywood you'd be at least twice as intelligent.

Yes, admit it that is where you are. A state in turmoil. More prisoners that anywhere on earth. An epidemic of police killing black people. Racial hatred. Declining economy. Burning more oil than anyone on earth and denying the climate change. Billions of acres of monoculture.
And who do you chose to get it right? A fucking fascist psychopath.

Actually I'm not from there. I'm north from there and in case you don't know what country that is, it's not North Korea!

[thedoc]

And who do you chose to get it right? A fucking fascist psychopath.

I'd rather have Trump as president than a criminal psychopath.

[Dubious]

Did you ever learn the breakdown and classifications when lining up the ducks in a row?

Ancient Chinese proverb: Shooting them down before lining them up leads to wrong conclusion.

[uwot]

And who do you chose to get it right? A fucking fascist psychopath.

I'd rather have Trump as president than a criminal psychopath.

I see. So you prefer your psychopaths to be fascist, rather than criminal. I presume you mean Hilary Clinton. That being so, what crime has she been convicted of?

[thedoc]

And who do you chose to get it right? A fucking fascist psychopath.

I'd rather have Trump as president than a criminal psychopath.

I see. So you prefer your psychopaths to be fascist, rather than criminal. I presume you mean Hilary Clinton. That being so, what crime has she been convicted of?

Where has Trump been proven to be a fascist, other than in the phony news.

There is a difference between being guilty and being convicted. A police officer once told me "We don't often catch the smart ones".