could be that some higher form of intelligence wished for life to be part of reality, but didn't want to be bothered managing it. — Jake

That is still very much intelligent design. I am not trying to prove or disprove any gods with Darwinian evolution, how people reconcile it with their God is up to them and I just don't care. I am correcting a common misconception about Darwin's theory.

I can see you are just flailing now, so good luck with. In the meantime you may want to grab an actual book on Darwin and read it.

I doubt it. I also don't recommend you give your address out to strangers on the Internet.

You don't think it is possible to have responsible sex and talk to your partner about such things before having sex, that tells me how little experience you have.

I am just saying perhaps you should be an adult before making adult decisions, and in the meantime keep your penis in your pants.

So you are saying that you personally are completely incapable of having responsible sex, and yet you accuse women of being illogical when it comes to their supposed biological urges.

Here is a crazy idea HAVE RESPONSIBLE SEX AND TALK TO YOUR PARTNER ABOUT POSSIBLE RISKS BEFORE HAVING SEX.

You are wrong, Darwin meant without direction, it was a major contributing factor to his loss of faith in God. He kept seeing imperfections in nature, like beetles with wings trapped under their shell, which made him doubt a divine influence on the process. He was very critical to all versions of Lamarckism, and when Wallace diverged on the subject of humans from theses concepts his response was simply to write "No!" on his letter.

Darwin kept notes on everything, so we are not guessing at his motives here, as he clearly stated them, privately in writing then later in his books, and during his time (and still today) it was met with much resistance, because humans can't accept the idea that human existence is not special and instead is just the result of aimless mutation. However, without the mutations being aimless, natural selection makes no sense at all, as it would actually not be the selection process. It is a necessary aspect for Darwin's natural laws to make sense.

Furthermore there are no laws in physics that says these mutations have intent, and there are no laws in physics that shows god is directing evolution, your post was wrong on several levels.

This is why Americans have such a hard time accepting Darwin's theory on evolution, because they cannot accept the idea that the process is without direction.

I want you to show the law of physics that proves the below statement and show how that law proves that the variation in species is not a random process, and in this instant by random I mean without aim, without direction, without method. As Darwin was very clear that this integral component of the natural selection processes was without direction, progression or anything of that flavor, and if that is not true, then Darwinian natural selection is not true. So I am very interested in knowing specifically what laws in physics disprove Darwinian evolution.

Evolution happens according to the laws of physics and thus could be argued to be deterministic. Therefore a god could change some minor details before the creation of life to start a butterfly effect. — BlueBanana

Did you hear me make that claim? In fact it was you who made such a claim.

In other-words you have no clue.

I see you are eager to engage your straw-man by calling it a "belief". I have been around that boat more times than I can count, so you keep spinning if you like, but I am not playing those games anymore.

Not believing in something that has no supporting evidence is not the same as believing something that has no supporting evidence. They are two very different things, despite your sad attempt to treat them as equals, furthermore the idea that humans have such special knowledge is not compatible with the Law of Parsimony and is in fact multiplying entities beyond necessity. The more plausible explanation is that these notions arise from human imagination. And, as it is demonstrated with Russell’s Teapot example, the burden of proof is not on me to prove that God does not exist, the burden of proof is to prove that God exist, as it would be the norm with any such similar mundane case.

Let me know when you actually give this God concept some real thought, instead of just spitting up the same tired old arguments, that clearly have failed to convince me in the past.

Which laws in physics?

The man is not responsible for what happens within it. — Ranger

If he sticks his penis into her body and shoots cum into her body then yes he is responsible for what happened within.

Your whole argument is as thoughless as it is sexist. If you knock a woman up you have a responsibility not just to her but to the unborn child as well and that has nothing to do with who shot sperm where, it has to do with being a decent human being and taking responsibility for your actions. As I got news for you, after the baby is born it will no longer be in her body and it will need parents to provide for it and if you don't step up then you are just a loser dead beat.

Ya they tried those false equivalences for decades as well. I have heard it all.

I wish I could be there when you die and find out that God is actually a woman.

I gave theists decades to prove their case, they never did.

I am 40 years old, you have no clue how "willingly" I reached these conclusions.

I also don't think unicorns, faeries, leprechauns, etc... are real. However, no one seems to care about that.

Don't forget that one of these arguments is his claim that women are too dumb and weak willed to resist supposed biological urges (that he never proved exist) and that in their irrational baby craze they maliciously trap poor and defenseless men with babies.

I don't care about that, just because I think all your gods are fake, that does not mean I actually believe I will be able to change your mind on such a topic. I have little desire to actually convince believers that their gods are not real. I understand how fruitless that task is.

However, there is far too much misunderstanding of evolution floating around on this site. It is because people receive a horrible education in evolution (especially in the USA) then they never bother to go out and correct this on their own. Even if someone borrows some element of Darwin's ideas, it is not evolution if it includes some type of design or direction, such ideas are not congruent with the totality of the process of natural selection. If you claim it is a divine process then you are really talking about special creation, but people don't like being associated with creationism they rather be associated with evolution.

Whatever sexist.

you are a distraction — Ranger

If my distraction is pointing out your sexist remarks, then I consider that productive.

I am not interested in correcting your bigoted sexist views, but I do feel sorry for any woman dumb enough to get in bed with you. However, feel free to actually prove your own "facts".

women have a special biological function which tells them to go through with pregnancy even if doing so is illogical — Ranger

It is hard not to see you as a sexist when you keep making sexist ignorant remarks.

Variation in species occurs due to random mutation, when a mutation results in an advantage then natural selection preserves that advantage. The speed in which this process moves will depend on the breeding cycle of the species in question, for some species this could take millions of years, while others, like bacteria, we can see it happening before our eyes.

I am not disagreeing that a shift in environment could create advantages and disadvantages, in fact, I completely agree with that and it has been proven factually true.

WHAT I AM SAYING, is that a change in environment is not the only relevant factor here. Ecosystems are a delicate balance and if a variation happens into an advantage that did not currently exist than that sub-species via natural selection will become the dominant species.

The fact that species are no longer suited is because the environment changes, and continues to change. — Harry Hindu

That can be the case, but it is not always the case. A random variation which gives any advantage over the existing population will be preserved by natural selection, and this can happen even if no changes in the environment occurred.

That is not evolution. Evolution is not progressive, it is not designed, it is a random process. You are talking about something entirely different.

You are a rude and ignorant person. Please do not breed. — Devans99

But I am clearly smarter than you, and I thought you wanted the smart people to breed.

I didn't say you sounded cold I say you were " showing an incredible ignorance of evolution." Learn how to read, then go read the Origin of Species.

Darwin talks about selective breeding right out of the gate, not on humans on animals, but it is the same principle. Actual Darwinian evolution is what is cold, and that this why people misinterpret it, like you, and tend towards a more Lamarckian spin on evolution (the idea of some type of progression).

Survival of the Fittest (aka natural selection) is the natural law which governs the selection process in the variation of species, in the case of eugenics that law would be removed. Eugenics would end natural selection in the human population. Natural selection is a selection process, so applying selective breeding removes that natural process.

Furthermore, whether or not humans are currently outside natural selection depend on if humans have escaped the Malthusian trap, which there are people on both sides of the fence on that one. Evolution is an incredibly slow process, and only time will tell if we have truly escaped Malthus' trap.

So to recap, it is not that I think you are being cold; I think that you don't know what you are talking about.

I am not the one playing with imaginary friends.

Women in this position under extreme emotional pressure to fulfill the requests of their bodies reproductive cycle. Therefore, if a man is hold hostage in the situation, the woman has every reason to irrationally move forward unless she has an amazingly rational and stable head on her shoulders. — Ranger

It sounds like you are calling women idiots who are a slave to their bodies.

I am 40.

I don't really care.

You are showing an incredible ignorance of evolution. Survival of the fittest is the natural selection process, so eugenics is what would actually remove that natural selection process. Furthermore evolution is not progressive, it is random.

Also "fittest" does not alway mean the strongest, fastest or smartest. It means they survived long enough to have offspring. In many cases this would mean they had sex appeal.

I command thou to send me money.

,Considering all this god crap is made-up human nonsense, then this means all gods are understandable by humans.

In time you'll understand.

You are just going to end up debating a shifting straw man.