Sentences with phrase «meant by evolution»

Cornell University Professor William Provine, a leading historian of Darwinism, concluded from Gallup's figures that the American public simply does not understand what the scientists mean by evolution.

``... when there is a systematic increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in a gene pool, that is precisely what we mean by evolution.»

Not exact matches

Bob Gilbreath is Chief Marketing Strategist of Bridge Worldwide, a WPP digital and relationship marketing agency, and author of the new book, The Next Evolution of Marketing: Connect with your Customers by Marketing with Meaning.

Evolution in the population of encodings is simulated by means of evolutionary processes; selection, crossover and mutation.

Not sure what you mean by «genetic information», but evolution requires changes in the genes of the next generation of organism, which is exactly what happens with gene duplication, transposition, etc..

And by evolutionary biologists do you mean biologist and Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky who wrote «Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution»?

Consider that to abort a potential life because of a world view founded in biologic evolution would mean that only beings with certain characteristics desired by the then present alpha figure would be allowed to gestate.

and there has yet to be definitive proof of ape evolving into human if you have it please by all means post it the world would like to see it, oh and you forgot to put in how evolution has as many gaps as any religion like Genesis Park describes a number of images drawn by Neanderthals and by humans in the Middle East which resemble dinosaurs.

Central to this Court - led revolution is the idea that the Constitution is in a state of more or less perpetual evolution, whence it follows that judges need not be bound by the precise words of the document, or by prior precedent, or by settled historical meaning.

British chemist Leslie Orgel once said, «Evolution is smarter than you are,» to which atheist Christopher Hitchens responded, «But this complement to the «intelligence» of natural selection is not by any means a concession to the stupid notion of «intelligent design.

If by «shove down your throats» you mean «teach supported scientific theory» then yes we do want to shove evolution down your throat.

Our evolution from apes means we aren't necessarily here for a specific purpose, but rather by luck of the draw and good old fashioned survival instinct.

I don't know what you mean by believing in evolution, but I think that it appears the life as we know it evolves.

If you have hard evidence that disputes evolution, by all means please bring it to our attention.

Evolution is complete and utter nonsense meant for consumption by delusional God - deniers.

Again, theologians who are persuaded of their usefulness in conveying theological meaning to the contemporary mind may have gone so far as to claim emergent evolution to be a theological symbol by which biblical events of history as well as subsequent doctrinal formulations may be explicated.

Now it is entirely possible, as I have said earlier, that the appearance of the human species with its peculiar form of consciousness is by no means the end of evolution.

You are a very religios man santa, but in fact evolution as a means to species was proven false by the global geological record 40 years ago.

First the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, then evolution is a farce and dinosaurs fossils are tricks placed by the devil to tempt people into not believing, and now the big bang is more proof that when the bible said the world was 6000 years old... it meant 18 billion years old.

If God fills some emotional need then, by all means, use him to fill it, but God isn't necessary for evolution to work.

I'm not sure what you mean by «spontaneously emerging», but I don't recall that being part of evolution theory.

With all the evidence, religious people ought to be intelligent design (I mean god - guided evolution by this) supporters at worst, though I would hope that after some serious thoughts on the moral paradoxes induced by belief in the «divine» people would come to their senses.

You mean a hindu, believer of hindu, stupid evolution, a hindu secular, stupid self centered, son of a hindu monkey, stupid secular by nature.

By no means would I attribute that directly to our failure to embrace evolution, but since that seems to be your line of thinking, I figured I'd humor you.

As a definition of evolution, that given by Huxley is certainly invalid, since increasing complexity, awareness, and mental activity occur by no means in all, not even in a majority, of evolutionary lineages.

Well meaning, but most are taught nothing by their «teachers», much like the «preachers» of evolution.

As one who has studied genetics and mechanisms of evolution for most of her life» evolution by natural selection being the one with which I am most familiar» I can say with a high degree of confidence that Prof. Carlin has no clear idea of what «Darwinism» means.

... By «directionality» in this sense - as a scientifically accessible or discernible movement - I do not mean one with a single unique, or even definite, goal, but simply one whichproceeds towards a definite range of possible outcomes - which become more focused and delimited as evolution continues.

Naturalistic evolution is consistent with the existence of «God» only if by that term we mean no more than a first cause which retires from further activity after establishing the laws of nature and setting the natural mechanism in motion.

Persons who say they believe in evolution, but who have in mind a process guided by an active God who purposely intervenes or controls the process to accomplish some end, are using the same term that the Darwinists use, but they mean something very different by it.

«Purifying» a «race» through selective inbreeding is practically the opposite of evolution of a species by means of natural selection.

Schools should also pay more attention to the philosophical issues raised by the controversy over creation and evolution — although attentiveness should not mean sneaking in sectarian teaching of religion under the subterfuge of «scientific creationism.»

that the human Earth should already have attained the natural completion of its evolutionary growth, then it must mean that the ultra-human perfection which neo-humanism envisages for Evolution will coincide in concrete terms with the crowning of the Incarnation awaited by all Christians.

For the use of those better placed than I, whose direct or indirect task it is to lead the Church, I wish to show candidly where, in my view, the root of the trouble lies, and how, by means of a simple readjustment at this particular, clearly localized point, we may hope to procure a rapid and complete rebound in the religious and Christian evolution of Mankind.

Ultimately, the Arian / feminist dislocation of meaning from words results in either a remotenessof God which can never be accessed and whose gap no creature (not even the Logos creature of Arianism) can ever hope to bridge (i.e. Arianism); or it means an immanence of God who is one with creation and its articulation in such a way that every articulation of meaning can be surpassed by a further better one, as evolution / God evolves to a higher state of being.

Darwin's theory of evolution, on the other hand, now 160 years old, is still by no means proven and its effect on souls has been, and continues to be, horrendous!

The scientific method is not used by most of science, otherwise there would be no big bang theory or evolution as a means to species in science, no black holes either.

The programs taught me about (1) admitting I was beat, (2) coming to believe in something greater than myself (eventually a higher power)(many evolutions and concepts of HP, all of these at one time or another: nature, the 12 steps, creator, Love, spiritual principles)(Step 3) applying my low self worth and gigantic Ego to these spiritual principles (4) write down my liabilities and assets (5) share them with another and my higher power (6 & 7) ask for the liabilites to be removed and be patient with the process (8) Make a list of all that were harmed by me (9) make amends to such folks except whn to do so would injure them or myself (10) take a daily inventory of my day, checking for snafus, mean temperment, arrogance etc (11) meditation and prayer to communicate to my higher power and quiet reflection to listen for the Truth (12) after having a spiritual awakening as a result of working these steps, help others if they wish for help because now I am in the position to assist.

But you would still have a problem, because proving evolution wrong does not mean creationism is right by default... you would still need to prove that.

John P. Tarver said: «The scientific method is not used by most of science, otherwise there would be no big bang theory or evolution as a means to species in science, no black holes either.

If you mean that we counter creationists arguments that evolution runs counter to the second law of thermodynamics by saying that that law only applies to heat transfer and randomness in a closed (gaseous) system, well, that is true.

Pedro, if I could show you every evolutionary single step between two species (species defined by the strictest scientific definition, they do not interbreed), steps verifiable by any means you deem adequate, would you then admit that speciation happens because of evolution?

When you try to use Evolution to explain anything, it just sounds so absurd, yet they (by they, i mean evolutionists) try to push it on us like it's a verified fact?

Of course this does not mean that non-Whiteheadian concepts such as determinism, sometimes associated with evolution, are required by process philosophy.

If it is true that, bound by the collective interaction of its liberties, the human social group can not escape from certain irreversible laws of evolution, does this mean that, observed along its axis of «greatest complexity» (i.e. increasing liberty) the World is coiling upon itself with as much sureness as it is in other respects radiating outwards and explosively expanding?

This analogy gets closer to what is meant by natural selection of chance variations, though it still does not do justice to the full picture of Darwinian evolution.

By this we do not mean just the temporal development that historical criticism discerns in the redaction of these codes, the evolution of moral ideas that may be traced out from the first Decalogue to the Law of the Covenant, on the one hand, and from the Decalogue itself through the restatements and amplifications of the book of Deuteronomy to the new synthesis of the «Holiness Code» in the book of Leviticus and the legislation subsequent to Ezra, on the other; more important than this development of the content of the Law is the transformation in the relationship between the faithful believer and the Law.

This means that the degree of consciousness attained by living creatures (from the moment, naturally, when it becomes discernible) may be used as a parameter to estimate the direction and speed of Evolution (that is to say, of the Cosmic Coiling) in terms of absolute values.

This abrupt turn from a causal theory of consciousness to talk about emergent properties not only leaves the puzzle about causality dangling, it compounds the mystery by evoking still more elementary puzzles about the meaning of emergence and evolution, as well as about how and where to locate sentience in an evolving «physical world.»

Atheists always claim that it's a fact that we got here by means of evolution, blind chance, but «we don't know the whole process yet.»