Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

u should be thinking about evolution like this, IC. i mean of course in the absence of evidence which neither u nor myself have because we don't have a time machine.

But I'm not asking you for evidence. I'm not asking you for proof. My request is so much more minimal than that...

I'm just asking if you can tell a story of how, absent a sexually-reproducing pair, evolution can go forward from any one stage to the ensuing one. Just a story. It doesn't even have to be true: I just want to know if a plausible story of that kind is even possible.

So far, the answer is, "No."

But show me wrong: give me a plausible story.

[Lacewing]

But if there was no original mating pair, then they only hypothesis must be something like multiple mating pairs, all evolving simultaneously...that is, assuming you're not trying to say evolution took place without sexual reproduction...

The problem for such a theory that would remain is that we know of no material mechanism capable of making multiple mating pairs all evolve simultaneously -- an event which, given Evolutionism, would have to have taken place not once but innumerable times over millions of years...every time a new phase of evolution is posited, in fact.

So there are a ton of logical and scientific holes left unfilled by any such narrative.

Just like the holes and lack of logic in the Bible narrative.

Solution... if we don't know, we shouldn't make up stories to fill the gap. Just accept that there are some things we don't know. If we create fantasy and call it real, then we are inclined to protect it and perpetuate it at all costs.

[Immanuel Can]

I find that you Immanuel have forced me to 'reject' a good deal within Christianity if it is anything like what you present to me.

That is excellent.

I've moved you from a position of irrational indifference to a position of active antipathy. The latter is far better than the former; at least you're aware of the dichotomy between my views and yours, and you've abandoned the illusion of inclusivism.

Hooray.

No intelligible ones, though.

That according to you.

No, that according to what intelligibility, reason and logic actually entail.

There is no rational account that makes inclusivism even possibly true: because to get a belief in inclusivism, you already have to reject all exclusivist views.

...abandoning sense altogether and simply giving oneself over to *faith*.

If you think that, you don't know what "faith" is, biblically. It's not that.

But it's ironic: you have given up logic and reason at the most fundamental level. You've even denigrated the Law of Non-Contradiction itself. And in the name of "inclusivism," you've raged against all exclusive views, including my own.

And yet, you imagine I'm the one "giving over to faith"? By your own declaration, it's you that wants us to have faith in irrational beliefs.

This will astonish you, but inclusivism is incapable of even being made rational to believe. It's self-defeating, because it has to exclude all exclusive alternatives in order to affirm its own "inclusiveness."

[Immanuel Can]

Solution... if we don't know, we shouldn't make up stories to fill the gap.

I haven't seen your narrative yet, LW.

Tell me even the most remotely plausible story of how evolution happens without sexual reproduction. I'm all ears.

[Alexis Jacobi]

u should be thinking about evolution like this, IC. i mean of course in the absence of evidence which neither u nor myself have because we don't have a time machine.

But I'm not asking you for evidence. I'm not asking you for proof. My request is so much more minimal than that...

I'm just asking if you can tell a story of how, absent a sexually-reproducing pair, evolution can go forward from any one stage to the ensuing one. Just a story. It doesn't even have to be true: I just want to know if a plausible story of that kind is even possible.

So far, the answer is, "No."

But show me wrong: give me a plausible story.

Sure. Think of a group of early hominids, as were said to exist in primordial Africa. Let's suppose there were numerous groupings, separated by terrain or climate barriers, who developed over some hundreds of thousands of years. Similarly one might assume, but also differently (with differences).

Then, at propitious junctures, some groups encountered others and mated, producing offspring with more of the characteristics we are aware of now. Let's suppose that there were one hundred different such pockets of these hominid tribes. Over hundreds of thousands of years these DNA exchange activity could have gone on. One group advancing, or regressing, and thereby showing it self biologically favored or disfavored, adaptive or maladaptive.

No single 'mating pair' to be seen or distinguished. But a long long process of back-and-forth and all with the context of an environmental situation said to have been erratic and demanding.

The sexually reproducing pair (::: blush :::), as you have painted it (Adam & Eve in their garden) (::: more blushes :::) is replaced by many sexually reproducing pairs.

So evolution could have carried on in this *consortium* of different individuals.

It seems entirely possible that this process carried on, and may still be carrying on, even through today.

I have given you a plausible story. And with it a bill for $4,366.92 for the trouble. Pay up, Jack!

Oh and I also will assess you a fine of $3,935.00 for the *improper blending of epistemological categories* -- a serious, sanctionable offense. Pay up or you'll be hauled off to jail.

The A&E story has nothing at all to do with *original mating pairs*. Sheesh.

[Immanuel Can]

Think of a group of early hominids, as were said to exist in primordial Africa. Let's suppose there were numerous groupings, separated by terrain or climate barriers, who developed over some hundreds of thousands of years. Similarly one might assume, but also differently (with differences).

Fill that story out: by what mechanism did they "develop"? Was it sexual, or asexual?

You, in your answer, seem to say, "sexual." Buf if it was, there was an original mating pair that took the species from step 1 to step 2, or step 2 to step 3...who first manifested the adaptive traits that would later come to characterize subsequent generations.

In other words, there had to be two first-modern-humans, one male, one female. And that's still true, even if I believe the rest of your account.

That is, unless you want to argue that all your "apes" evolved magically, by all reproducing simultaneously in one night, all yielding modern hominids. And I don't think you want to go that route, though if you do, please, go ahead.

So I'll be holding onto that cheque. You haven't earned it just yet.

P.S. -- Are you "excluding" my view? How uninclusive of you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Think of a group of early hominids, as were said to exist in primordial Africa. Let's suppose there were numerous groupings, separated by terrain or climate barriers, who developed over some hundreds of thousands of years. Similarly one might assume, but also differently (with differences).

Fill that story out: by what mechanism did they "develop"? Was it sexual, or asexual?

You, in your answer, seem to say, "sexual." Buf if it was, there was an original mating pair that took the species from step 1 to step 2, or step 2 to step 3...who first manifested the adaptive traits that would later come to characterize subsequent generations.

In other words, there had to be two first-modern-humans, one male, one female. And that's still true, even if I believe the rest of your account.

That is, unless you want to argue that all your "apes" evolved magically, by all reproducing simultaneously in one night, all yielding modern hominids. And I don't think you want to go that route, though if you do, please, go ahead.

So I'll be holding onto that cheque. You haven't earned it just yet.

P.S. -- Are you "excluding" my view? How uninclusive of you.

Of course it was sexual, you nut. What other option is there?

There were (in the example you asked me to put together) numerous mating pairs, maybe hundreds or thousands. And each of them, when their adaptations were successful, prospered. But I am saying that any number of such couples were possible.

Adaptive traits were manifested in them, through their success, and through their progeny.

There were many males and many females, spread over a wide territory.

No one of my beloved apes evolved magically. They evolved naturally, within demanding natural circumstances. The point is that many such couples could have evolved separately for the longest time.

I won't take a check from you. Cash will be required.

[Lacewing]

Solution... if we don't know, we shouldn't make up stories to fill the gap.

I haven't seen your narrative yet, LW.

Tell me even the most remotely plausible story of how evolution happens without sexual reproduction. I'm all ears.

Why are you asking me to do what I suggested shouldn't be done? Are you incapable of living without making up a narrative?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The Adam & Eve story through Judaic interpretation. There are many different versions. This is just one.

[Immanuel Can]

Think of a group of early hominids, as were said to exist in primordial Africa. Let's suppose there were numerous groupings, separated by terrain or climate barriers, who developed over some hundreds of thousands of years. Similarly one might assume, but also differently (with differences).

Fill that story out: by what mechanism did they "develop"? Was it sexual, or asexual?

You, in your answer, seem to say, "sexual." Buf if it was, there was an original mating pair that took the species from step 1 to step 2, or step 2 to step 3...who first manifested the adaptive traits that would later come to characterize subsequent generations.

In other words, there had to be two first-modern-humans, one male, one female. And that's still true, even if I believe the rest of your account.

That is, unless you want to argue that all your "apes" evolved magically, by all reproducing simultaneously in one night, all yielding modern hominids. And I don't think you want to go that route, though if you do, please, go ahead.

So I'll be holding onto that cheque. You haven't earned it just yet.

P.S. -- Are you "excluding" my view? How uninclusive of you.

Of course it was sexual, you nut. What other option is there?

Now you've got my point! It's a miracle that it took you so long to discover the glaringly obvious.

I am saying that any number of such couples were possible.

Tell me that "possible" story. Let's start at night, since you say it was sexual reproduction. Everybody went to sleep, and in the morning, they all woke up with progeny that all contained exactly the same adaptation necessary to make them into modern humans?

And there was some magic mechanism that made that happen to all of them, at exactly the same time? But you don't know what that magic mechanism would be, because science itself doesn't know of any such mechanism?

This is your story?

Because if it's not, then there was one pair to whom that happened before it happened to any others. We know that by simple, logical deduction.

I won't take a check from you. Cash will be required.

Sorry: you still haven't nearly earned it. You don't even have a "just-so" story.

[Immanuel Can]

Solution... if we don't know, we shouldn't make up stories to fill the gap.

I haven't seen your narrative yet, LW.

Tell me even the most remotely plausible story of how evolution happens without sexual reproduction. I'm all ears.

Why are you asking me to do what I suggested shouldn't be done? Are you incapable of living without making up a narrative?

If there is no possible narrative that could explain how something even COULD happen, you can be quite sure it never DID happen.

[Lacewing]

There were (in the example you asked me to put together) numerous mating pairs, maybe hundreds or thousands. And each of them, when their adaptations were successful, prospered. But I am saying that any number of such couples were possible.

Adaptive traits were manifested in them, through their success, and through their progeny.

There were many males and many females, spread over a wide territory.

No one of my beloved apes evolved magically. They evolved naturally, within demanding natural circumstances. The point is that many such couples could have evolved separately for the longest time.

I won't take a check from you. Cash will be required.

That is much more logical than the Bible story of Adam and Eve.

After all, how do all species begin and evolve? Were there mating pairs for every creature on Earth? Why do people prefer stories that obviously make no sense instead of simply not knowing?

[Lacewing]

If there is no possible narrative that could explain how something even COULD happen, you can be quite sure it never DID happen.

If there is no possible way for you to know something, you can be quite sure you don't know it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Tell me that "possible" story. Let's start at night, since you say it was sexual reproduction. Everybody went to sleep, and in the morning, they all woke up with progeny that all contained exactly the same adaptation necessary to make them into modern humans?

And there was some magic mechanism that made that happen to all of them, at exactly the same time? But you don't know what that magic mechanism would be, because science itself doesn't know of any such mechanism?

My dear braindead child, you asked for a plausible story. You said *it does not even have to be true*. I put it together for you.

Among those thousands of couples, each in a tribe, separated by distance and danger, they all lived and struggled. Adaptations both adaptive and maladaptive occurred -- in separate regions. Over hundreds of thousands of years. Tending, perhaps, in a similar direction. But with variables and differences.

Then, there were DNA exchanges when chance and accident made these mating exchanges possible.

The same adaptation? No. Why is that needed? Different ones, in different areas, and then an exchange over long long periods of time.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Adam & Eve explained by Rabbi Friedman. He's annoying but interesting.

"Our mission is to fix the lowest world".