@Texas Sailor: say buddha.

Keep in mind that any answer you get to that reality question is gonna be a subjective truth, which I have. It's true because I am the subject matter expert on my views, and I hold them in varying degrees of certainty. Secondly, I do not extend my subjective truths beyond my own experience of them. Any claim I make that goes beyond my own personal subjective jurisdiction must stand up with evidence. A claim that I say is true for others must be proved. So please, ask your next questions now that you've had training on how to respond to the answers.

(August 25, 2013 at 7:38 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Keep in mind that any answer you get to that reality question is gonna be a subjective truth, which I have. It's true because I am the subject matter expert on my views, and I hold them in varying degrees of certainty. Secondly, I do not extend my subjective truths beyond my own experience of them. Any claim I make that goes beyond my own personal subjective jurisdiction must stand up with evidence. A claim that I say is true for others must be proved. So please, ask your next questions now that you've had training on how to respond to the answers.

My question is quite simple:

In your opinion/view/understanding etc. etc., how did homo sapiens come into existence?

(August 21, 2013 at 12:25 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(August 21, 2013 at 12:06 pm)Chas Wrote: Cultural relativism is a resulting view of the fact that cultures evolve. It is only one of the ways to view cultural differences, it is not a complete position in and of itself. It puts the emphasis in the wrong place, allowing the kind of interpretation that absolves people of responsibility.

In your personal understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection, does the process take into account anything else in addition to that which aids in the survival of a species, or is selecting those traits which aid in the survival of a species the only thing the process deals with?

How does that relate to my observation?

However, variation, heritability, differential reproduction are the essence of evolution. The interesting arguments occur regarding the details of the mechanisms involved in differential reproduction, the workings of DNA, and foetal development. I'm sure there are other interesting areas - those are mine.

(August 25, 2013 at 7:36 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(August 25, 2013 at 7:31 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Ahhh...you just fucked him up. Lol

---

Sorry...Nevermind. Yes. I am.

---

Next one.

To what do we, as homo sapiens, owe our existence to, according to your view of reality?

Are you asking if I think modern man had ancestors or if I think they appeared from dust?

---

I see now. I think the former (evolution) to be more likely than the sprung from dust theory. Did I answer correctly?

(August 25, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote:

(August 25, 2013 at 7:36 pm)discipulus Wrote: To what do we, as homo sapiens, owe our existence to, according to your view of reality?

Are you asking if I think modern man had ancestors or if I think they appeared from dust?

Let me make it more simple for you.

Do you believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection as espoused by most contemporary evolutionary biologists?

I just answered you. I think it more likely than its alternative. It's amazing that under the right circumstances a simple non-living molecule can be shown to transform into an amino acid in a lab. From there, I haven't the slightest clue! But, if the building blocks of life can form from non-life in a lab, its seems reasonable to think that under the right circumstances more advanced complexities could also follow. Again, this compared to magic? I'll take this. Next question!

(August 25, 2013 at 7:52 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: I just answered you. I think it more likely than its alternative. It's amazing that under the right circumstances a simple non-living molecule can be shown to transform into an amino acid in a lab. From there, I haven't the slightest clue! But, if the building blocks of life can form from non-life in a lab, its seems reasonable to think that under the right circumstances more advanced complexities could also follow. Again, this compared to magic? I'll take this. Next question!

And what will happen to you upon your death?

Theories are not something you believe in, just because someone else claims them to be true.
Theories arise as an attempt to explain a certain set of natural phenomena.
The theory of evolution by natural selection explains how some species get turned into others, how some species don't survive, hire some species don't need to change... it explains all currently known animal, plant and fungal life, based on fossils from several places and dated to several time instances of this planet's "lifetime".

(August 25, 2013 at 7:56 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(August 25, 2013 at 7:52 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: I just answered you. I think it more likely than its alternative. It's amazing that under the right circumstances a simple non-living molecule can be shown to transform into an amino acid in a lab. From there, I haven't the slightest clue! But, if the building blocks of life can form from non-life in a lab, its seems reasonable to think that under the right circumstances more advanced complexities could also follow. Again, this compared to magic? I'll take this. Next question!

And what will happen to you upon your death?

Hmm...I don't know for sure. But I don't remember what happened before I was born and that doesn't seem bad, so I guess I must assume that it will be similar to that, if not the same. I have a subjective sense of a state in which I am not alive, I will assume without penalty that the latter state will be the same. Next question!