There is no "tipping point" for adaptive capacity, it is totally imagined

[Gottservant]

Again, you are thinking things about evolution that are just not so. The theory of evolution is quite clear in agreeing with your statement. Random mutation is NOT all it takes.

As long as you think evolution is preaching random mutation as the only game in town, you are thinking falsely about evolution.

You need to incorporate the processes in evolution that make sure the results are not all over the place. When you leave those out, you have an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of evolution.

Yes but incorporating processes that stabilize design, eliminates mutation almost altogether (~75 mutations out of billions is not statistically significant) and therefore destroys the fuel for trans-speciation completely. I mean if you are not going to get up some kind of momentum for holistic change, how is anyone going to believe you? Mutation is the only thing that will do it and it just does not.

If I create a selection pressure of fire danger for a given species, you will not just get a bunch of species that look like fire because that's what turns their mates on. No, potentiation will ensure that successive generations avoid fire and that they keep their holistic integrity in the process. Everything else is just fantasy, pure fantasy.

Where you get the idea that I am confusing mutation with trans-speciation for no reason is beyond me. It's what they advertize on behalf of evolution on the tv on a regular basis. The whole planet is contemplating this fantasy when the balance that would sustain it is just not there.

If you can show me a species that is aware of evolution happening to it in one lifetime, I will readily admit that it is more than micro-evolution. As it stands, you have a little bit of drift and absolutely no control over which way that drift is going and no intention to look for control. Yet the whole while I am telling you that mutation has almost nothing to do with it and potentiation keeps it from being trans-specieal.

I mean it doesn't take a genius to work out that potentiation is actually responsible for a good deal more than evolutionists are prepared to accept. I don't care if it hasn't been scientifically verified yet, it is the logical conclusion any one with a sense of completeness would accept. The studies have been done, species aren't changing and something is keeping them that way, instinct has yet to be explained, as has a whole host of other control issues that Evolutionists simply blather nonsense in response to.

Am I getting my point across?

 

[gluadys]

Yes but incorporating processes that stabilize design, eliminates mutation almost altogether (~75 mutations out of billions is not statistically significant) and therefore destroys the fuel for trans-speciation completely.

This suggests to me the notion that only mutations which benefit an organism get expressed in its physical being.

But we know that isn't so.

Perhaps there is a problem here in defining what a mutation is.

The word has a long history and originally referred to a physical trait in and of itself. So we get whole organisms being referred to as "mutants".

Then the genetic basis of variations in character traits was discovered, and "mutation" began to be used to refer to a change in genes. But it was not known yet what sort of thing genes were.

With the discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule, we now know that genes, in fact the whole genome, is made up of base pairs of nucleotides in the molecule. It is changes in these nucleotides that is currently meant by "mutation".

Now, it also happens that many of these changes have no effect at all on the cell or organism. So you can only see these mutations by looking directly at the molecule and sequencing the base nucleotides. Nevertheless, they get inherited like everything else. They are not eliminated just because they are, for the most part, invisible.

Another class of mutations has some minor effect, but it is not adaptive. It doesn't affect the well-being of the cell or organism. Cells & organisms with the original genome and cells & organisms with the mutated genome live side by side like people with blue eyes and brown eyes. A difference is there, but it only adds to standing variation, with no favoritism to one variety or the other and no help or harm to the fitness of the organism. Those mutations are also there. They happen. They are not eliminated (except through genetic drift.)

That leaves the class of mutations which can be either harmful or helpful in adaptation. An organism with such a mutation will either be less able than average to survive and reproduce or more able than average to survive and reproduce and leave more descendants that its fellows. Of these, the ones that are helpful in adapting are much rarer than the ones that cause problems.

So I don't see any elimination of mutations. But perhaps what you mean is that of all the mutations which occur, only a very few contribute to adaptation. Only a very few will have the cooperation of natural selection in making them more numerous.

You may think this is a huge problem for evolution, but it is not. Perhaps this is where potentiation as well as natural selection plays an important role in assuring the amplification of the adaptive mutation through the population so that all can benefit from it.

I mean if you are not going to get up some kind of momentum for holistic change, how is anyone going to believe you? Mutation is the only thing that will do it and it just does not.


This sounds more like a politician seeking to get support for a new policy of social change. With genetic mutations, no one needs to believe anything, because it all happens below the level of consciousness--just like growing toenails.

If I create a selection pressure of fire danger for a given species, you will not just get a bunch of species that look like fire because that's what turns their mates on. No, potentiation will ensure that successive generations avoid fire and that they keep their holistic integrity in the process. Everything else is just fantasy, pure fantasy.

Again, this sounds as if potentiation either is natural selection or works very closely with natural selection. In this scenario, those who feared the fire and fled from it survived and went on to have children, while those who did not flee, or did not escape, died--and that pretty much prevents them from having children.

So in the next generation all the children are raised by parents who pass on to them their fear of fire. In a scientific sense, this is natural selection. This is adaptation to the danger of fire.

Where you get the idea that I am confusing mutation with trans-speciation for no reason is beyond me. It's what they advertize on behalf of evolution on the tv on a regular basis. The whole planet is contemplating this fantasy when the balance that would sustain it is just not there.

Oh, heck. TV is a very poor source of information about evolution. Why do you put the prefix "trans-" on "speciation".

How do you define "speciation"?

If you can show me a species that is aware of evolution happening to it in one lifetime, I will readily admit that it is more than micro-evolution.

Evolution does not happen in a way that organisms are aware of it happening. Even in humans, it would take many years of record-keeping and analysis to decipher whether an evolutionary change is taking place, and it would be over generations, not in one life-time. And no one individual would be aware of anything unusual happening in themself or in their lifetime.

So basically, the sort of evidence you are asking for is the antithesis of evolution.

As it stands, you have a little bit of drift and absolutely no control over which way that drift is going and no intention to look for control. Yet the whole while I am telling you that mutation has almost nothing to do with it and potentiation keeps it from being trans-specieal.

Sorry, I've lost the thread of thought here "Mutation has nothing to do with it..." with what?

"Potentiation keeps it ..." keeps what?

What is it that is kept from being trans-specieal--and what does that mean?

I mean it doesn't take a genius to work out that potentiation is actually responsible for a good deal more than evolutionists are prepared to accept.

Insofar as potentiation is a spiritual, non-physical phenomenon, it has no place in science, as science can only observe what can be measured, weighed, counted, etc. That doesn't mean there is no potentiation, but it does mean it won't get any space in science. It belongs in a theology of science, not in a textbook of science.

I don't care if it hasn't been scientifically verified yet, it is the logical conclusion any one with a sense of completeness would accept. The studies have been done, species aren't changing

Yes, actually, they are. It can be seen and measured in species with a fast generational turnover. Getting a handle on evolution in longer-lived species is more difficult. It would involve a multi-generational research project to see it in real time rather than inferring it from genetic and geographical and fossil evidence. And I doubt we will ever see any institution prepared to fund such a project and maintain it long enough.

and something is keeping them that way, instinct has yet to be explained, as has a whole host of other control issues that Evolutionists simply blather nonsense in response to.

Indeed there is a lot still to be learned and every question answered raises ten more to be answered. But that is no reason to toss out what is already known.

Am I getting my point across?

Not sure. I understand that you are more focused on spiritual changes (and forces?) like potentiation, validation, legitimation, perceptions, beliefs , etc. While I am focusing on the basis physical events and mechanisms of evolution.

I have no problem with this. Personally, I believe that all physical reality is indissolubly connected and interconnected with spiritual reality i.e. nothing is purely physical.

However, one thing I do insist on. Because reality is a psycho-physico unity, there is always consistency between the spiritual and the empirical. So they cannot be set at odds with each other.

When we know what is happening to bodies, it cannot be the case that some unseen, unmeasurable spiritual aspect of reality makes it impossible. We know it is possible, because it is happening. So if our view or interpretation of the psychical aspect says it can't be happening when we know that it is--something is amiss with our understanding of the spiritual side of things.

So, whatever potentiation is, it cannot be standing in the way of evolutionary change, because we know that on a physical level, evolution is very real. That means that the interrelation of physical and spiritual, (through potentiation or whatever) must allow for evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

You cannot sideline potentiation as a mere spiritual curiousity, it is the holistic self-determination of the living organism.

Death is not as fit a selector as potentiation.

Deductive logic that Death is a refiner is not new to the faith, either (but how you get from that to trans-specieal (by which I mean transition from one species to another) migration is beyond me).

I don't think you really appreciate just how integrated an organism is; as I have tried to point out with discussion of caretaker genes and potentiation, there is a fundamental problem of critical mass when it comes to making a trans-specieal leap. While it is for all intents and purposes "possible", even at some times more "likely" than at others, there is a completely improbable gap between what a creature may "want" to become and what it takes to actually become it. The pitfalls of getting that critical mass, right, are of course formidable and largely fatal.

I mean say you adapt something, for example, what role do you think the interpretation of that adaptation plays in the organism? Could it be that it is fundamental to the adaptation not becoming cancerous, or rejected, or malfunctioning or backward? What are the chances you will get that right, by accident?

 

[gluadys]

You cannot sideline potentiation as a mere spiritual curiousity, it is the holistic self-determination of the living organism.

Ah, that is a helpful definition.

Death is not as fit a selector as potentiation.

Maybe it is the other way around. That inability to survive and/or reproduce is evidence of a failure of potentiation.

Deductive logic that Death is a refiner is not new to the faith, either (but how you get from that to trans-specieal (by which I mean transition from one species to another) migration is beyond me).

I don't think you really appreciate just how integrated an organism is; as I have tried to point out with discussion of caretaker genes and potentiation, there is a fundamental problem of critical mass when it comes to making a trans-specieal leap.

Well, in evolution there is no such thing as a trans-specieal leap. So that is not a problem for evolutionary change.

Have you heard the terms "phyletic evolution" and "cladistic speciation"? Understanding these phenomena take one a long way toward understanding how new species arise. It is not a matter of one species transforming itself into a different species (and certainly not suddenly in one organism or many), but of new species emerging more like buds on a tree than like jumping from one step to the next on a ladder.

While it is for all intents and purposes "possible", even at some times more "likely" than at others, there is a completely improbable gap between what a creature may "want" to become and what it takes to actually become it. The pitfalls of getting that critical mass, right, are of course formidable and largely fatal.

Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with what a creature or species may want to become. Neither will-power nor desire direct evolution--at least not the will or desire of the creature. (God's will & desire are a different matter.)

I mean say you adapt something, for example, what role do you think the interpretation of that adaptation plays in the organism? Could it be that it is fundamental to the adaptation not becoming cancerous, or rejected, or malfunctioning or backward?

Pretty much so, though there are instances when a less than desirable change piggy backs on an adaptive change. But an adaptive change, by definition, improves the survival/reproductive fitness of an organism.

However, many genetic changes that get expressed in organisms are not adaptive. Some are even harmful, in that they do cause cancer or ALS or Tay-Sachs syndrome.

These do occur. People (and plants and fungi and other animals) are born with such genetic defects and sometimes live quite a long time with them. ALS symptoms, for example, tend not to show up until a person is in their 40s--by which time he or she has likely already married and founded a family--perhaps even has grandchildren.

So, how does potentiation fit into this scenario?

What are the chances you will get that right, by accident?

Now you are repeating the error that evolution occurs only by accident. It doesn't. Evolution is not an accident. Darwin thought of it as a natural law and a natural law is not an accident.

 

[Gottservant]

Argh, I will get back to you once something of what you have said has sunk in.

 

[Gottservant]

Ah, that is a helpful definition.

Thanks.

Maybe it is the other way around. That inability to survive and/or reproduce is evidence of a failure of potentiation.

Except that potentiation of a failing or failed adaptation can be communicated before, during and after the failure, in a number of different ways. In many respects this means absolutely nothing is weeded out, but in a more constructive sense, it means that the resurrection transcends the organism which it sustains.

Well, in evolution there is no such thing as a trans-specieal leap. So that is not a problem for evolutionary change.

They call it macro-evolution, but trans-specieal highlights that more than one supporting belief is needed to arrive at the conclusion that it is possible.

Have you heard the terms "phyletic evolution" and "cladistic speciation"? Understanding these phenomena take one a long way toward understanding how new species arise. It is not a matter of one species transforming itself into a different species (and certainly not suddenly in one organism or many), but of new species emerging more like buds on a tree than like jumping from one step to the next on a ladder.

Oranges are oranges and apples are apples. If it is trees budding from trees, then at some point it is leaping from one rung to another rung. You differentiate almost nothing by what you've said. Sorry.

Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with what a creature or species may want to become. Neither will-power nor desire direct evolution--at least not the will or desire of the creature. (God's will & desire are a different matter.)

And here is where you throw the baby out with the bathwater. How pray tell does Evolution happen if desire or will power are not present? And if those things are loaded with information that influences the genetic determination of the organism?

Pretty much so, though there are instances when a less than desirable change piggy backs on an adaptive change. But an adaptive change, by definition, improves the survival/reproductive fitness of an organism.

However, many genetic changes that get expressed in organisms are not adaptive. Some are even harmful, in that they do cause cancer or ALS or Tay-Sachs syndrome.

These do occur. People (and plants and fungi and other animals) are born with such genetic defects and sometimes live quite a long time with them. ALS symptoms, for example, tend not to show up until a person is in their 40s--by which time he or she has likely already married and founded a family--perhaps even has grandchildren.

So, how does potentiation fit into this scenario?

Potentiation means that the children avoid the same pitfalls with the same genetic material, or that they change the genetic material altogether. It is not necessary for the person with ALS to die, as Evolutionists put it. The ongoing communication with the person before they die, not only ensures that the problem DNA is dealt with, but that all contributing factors are thoroughly considered also.

Now you are repeating the error that evolution occurs only by accident. It doesn't. Evolution is not an accident. Darwin thought of it as a natural law and a natural law is not an accident.

Except that a law follows cause and effect, not probable cause and unknown effect.

You are holding up the best of anyone I've seen debate in favour of Evolution (and I have seen a few), even without abusing me in any shape or form, which is commendable. Unfortunately, well, there's a lot I could say, suffice it to remark that you are not evidencing any experience of a transition from disbelieving to believing Evolution, as is customary with anything that is actually true, so I can only assume you've learned dogma in a way that doesn't stop you thinking like a human being, at some level. This is commendable, but the working parts are far from evident.

I mean, what about the fact that unless you fix your efforts at adaptation on a single point, across multiple generations, you will never truly adapt the best examples of a given species possibilities? You don't think speciealized adapation is going to "outlive" random mutation by a severe degree? I really don't see how you can argue that, it is on your terms, after all.

Keep up the good work, but the more you avoid thinking outside the box, the more that box is going to look like home.

 

[hgkeller771]

Many questions in your post. Check out my new book, David's Gift on Amazon. It will answer many of your questions.

 

[hgkeller771]

How do you know there is no such thing as transpecieal leap? God created the DNA molecule. Who's to say he did not design within the gene complex a coded unraveling of DNA changes yielding a chain of new species over time. God created the earth and the climates and conditions on earth that weed out the ones He didn't need for His design. No two people are the same. No two animals are the same. The DNA molecule is God's tool for life creating all different life forms over time.

 

[gluadys]

How do you know there is no such thing as transpecieal leap?

Because there is no evidence that species emerge via leaps. There is plenty of evidence that they emerge through isolation from the main species gene pool with reproductive isolation following less firm forms of isolation.

God created the DNA molecule. Who's to say he did not design within the gene complex a coded unraveling of DNA changes yielding a chain of new species over time.

I'll accept the God part, but not the chain part.
The Great Chain of Being is an ancient concept that suggests a progress of being from inert matter (farthest removed from God) to the seraphim (closest to God). In this chain humanity is about midway.


However, evolutionary change is branch-like, not chain-like. Species do not merely change in form, they increase in number and diversification. Species are more like leaves on a tree than links in a chain.

The Great Chain of Being suits monarchic, hierarchical thinking. Evolution is a great leveller, much more democratic, with an equal place for all.

God created the earth and the climates and conditions on earth that weed out the ones He didn't need for His design.

Why would God be such a poor designer as to make what is not needed? I am not sure I like this theological pathway.

No two people are the same. No two animals are the same. The DNA molecule is God's tool for life creating all different life forms over time.

Now that makes more sense. Take it a little further. The evolution of the DNA molecule is God's tool for life creating all different life forms over time, diversifying from one common ancestor into the complex biosphere of our time, and, if we don't destroy everything in the next 50 years or so as we seem bound and determined to do, even more beauty and diversity to come.

 

[gluadys]

They call it macro-evolution, but trans-specieal highlights that more than one supporting belief is needed to arrive at the conclusion that it is possible.

Well, macro-evolution or trans-speciation, most people have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to these concepts. They have been sold a line that there is a huge distinction between evolution within a species (which leads to species changing form over time) and evolution of new species. This is often misrepresented as "one species changing into another" which is not a good description of what really takes place at all. They have been told that evolution within a species is no big deal but macro-evolution is not possible.

Well that is blatantly false. Macro-evolution--the emergence of new species--is not at all impossible; it is an observed fact. There are all kinds of verbal tricks used to get around this and it is certainly the aspect of evolution about which there is the most confusion and obfuscation.

Almost everyone who thinks macro-evolution, or trans-speciation if you prefer, is an impossibility really has to unlearn a lot of things they think they know before they can get a grip on what macro-evolution really is (it is NOT a leap from one species to another, especially in a single generation) and learn how it actually happens.

I wonder how much you have to unlearn before you can begin to learn?

Oranges are oranges and apples are apples. If it is trees budding from trees, then at some point it is leaping from one rung to another rung.

No, there is no leaping, not from rung to rung, nor from branch to branch either. There is growth, there is change, there is dividing into sub-populations (sub-branches), there is a proliferation of new twigs and leaves from each branch, there is modification, adaptation, diversification, but no leaping any sort of gap.

And here is where you throw the baby out with the bathwater. How pray tell does Evolution happen if desire or will power are not present?

As God arranged it to, through the physical forces and properties God put into play. In terms of mutations, they are changes in the structure of the DNA molecule. Atoms are rearranged to produce a different pattern of base nucleotides. When did you or any organism or any collective of organisms produce such rearrangements because you wished to or willed to. What effect does your will have on the sub-atomic particles of molecules in your cells?

As I said, I can see a place for God's will to impact such events, but not mine.

Besides, evolution has been going on long before anyone knew there was a DNA molecule, even before they knew there were molecules or atoms. So what role could human or animal or vegetative will play when these species were/are totally unaware of the possibility of evolution or the basis of genetic changes?

Some parts of a very large molecule get rearranged, and in some cases this triggers a different chemical reaction. Chemical reactions are taking place in all your cells at all times in a bewildering number and variety. Are you aware of them? Can you choose what chemical reactions occur via your will, your desire? Not directly, that's for sure.

(One can have certain impacts on one's body chemistry through life-style choices about what to eat, how much exercise one gets, and so forth--but this is more indirect.)

Such changes are taking place in every cell in your body, every time a cell divides. But the only ones of importance for evolution are those that occur in germ cells.

Do you consciously will the production of sperm? Does your desire or will-power impact the quality and character of your sperm cells? Is it your will or desire that specifies which changes, if any, from your parents' genomes will appear in the newly-generated sperm cells? And is it you or God who chooses which of several million sperm will fertilize an egg in your partner's body?

For the newly-conceived organism, the process of development and maturation takes over from this point on. But all this is merely the preliminary stage-setting for evolution of the species.

Who wills or desires the dance of population genetics? Of selection pressures? Of dividing populations? Certainly not individual organisms.

So the only entity whose will or desire I can see being expressed through evolution is that of the Creator and Sustainor of life. This is something God takes care of. Not us, not any species, for we have no capacity, as yet, to direct our own evolution. We do direct some of the evolution of other species via selective breeding and now genetic engineering, but this cannot be the way evolution has happened in most of history.

And if those things are loaded with information that influences the genetic determination of the organism?

It doesn't matter how much information there is in one's emotions or thoughts if they cannot cause molecular changes or chemical reactions or impact the distribution of chromosomes in meiotic cell division or determine which sperm fertilizes which egg, or set the ecological conditions under which an organism will live and the challenges it will face.

As I see it, the only Being of which it may be true that thought, desire and will can influence all these things is God.

Potentiation means that the children avoid the same pitfalls with the same genetic material, or that they change the genetic material altogether. It is not necessary for the person with ALS to die, as Evolutionists put it. The ongoing communication with the person before they die, not only ensures that the problem DNA is dealt with, but that all contributing factors are thoroughly considered also.

Yet they do die. And if some of their children have inherited the gene, they also succumb to the illness and die. The one way to remove the legacy from the family is for those with the gene not to reproduce unless they are sure the embryo has not inherited the gene.

How do you think the problem DNA is dealt with? The gene doesn't simply disappear from the cells of a person who inherited it.

Except that a law follows cause and effect, not probable cause and unknown effect.

We live in a quantum world; all causes are probable. And as for natural selection, we know what the effects are.

I mean, what about the fact that unless you fix your efforts at adaptation on a single point, across multiple generations, you will never truly adapt the best examples of a given species possibilities?

True. This is why you seldom see much evolutionary change in large, stable populations with a significant geographical range. It takes much time for an evolutionary change to spread through this kind of population and before an adaptation has much impact, the selection pressures have changed to favour a different adaptation. This was observed on a small scale when Peter and Rosemary Grant studied the finches of the Galapagos through a severe drought followed a few years later by abundant rain. Under drought conditions, there was a push toward larger body size and larger, stronger beaks. Under rainy conditions, this was relaxed and smaller birds with smaller beaks became more numerous again. Over geological time, this would get averaged out.

This is also why the most dramatic examples of evolutionary change occur on the periphery of habitat zones, in small relatively isolated pockets of the population. An adaptation can spread more quickly through the small population, and there are often special conditions that favour a change that endure long enough for the adaptation to take hold.

So you are right--there does need to be sustained "focus" that moves a species in a particular direction over generations to realize an adaptation.

You don't think speciealized adapation is going to "outlive" random mutation by a severe degree? I really don't see how you can argue that, it is on your terms, after all.

Oh absolutely. That is why I keep telling you that evolution is not an accident. It is not a matter of chance. In the long term, it is selection that outlives random mutation and really sets the ground rules of evolution.


It is notable that virtually all evolution-denying literature downplays the crucial role of selection while focusing on the randomness of mutational events. That is why people get confused into thinking that evolution is all a matter of chance and accident.

But evolution actually has rules and patterns that are understandable if one takes the time to learn them.

 

[Gottservant]

Thanks for your time in writing, I will get back to you.

 

[mark kennedy]

I mean say you adapt something, for example, what role do you think the interpretation of that adaptation plays in the organism? Could it be that it is fundamental to the adaptation not becoming cancerous, or rejected, or malfunctioning or backward? What are the chances you will get that right, by accident?

I don't like to jump in the middle of an ongoing discussion, just wanted to offer this little riddle. There is an adaptation, let's say it a given, an obviously beneficial trait. Was the trait the result of a mutation (a failure of DNA repair) or is there another molecular cause?

Just wanted to throw that in the mix.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

I don't like to jump in the middle of an ongoing discussion, just wanted to offer this little riddle. There is an adaptation, let's say it a given, an obviously beneficial trait. Was the trait the result of a mutation (a failure of DNA repair) or is there another molecular cause?

Just wanted to throw that in the mix.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Sure there are other possible molecular causes, Mark. Radiation for one.
Of course, in your terminology, this is still "damage" to the DNA that doesn't get repaired.
Any mutation of any type, whatever the cause, may, at times, be beneficial.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sure there are other possible molecular causes, Mark. Radiation for one.
Of course, in your terminology, this is still "damage" to the DNA that doesn't get repaired.
Any mutation of any type, whatever the cause, may, at times, be beneficial.

Random copy errors explain nothing, adaptations have to be the result of molecular mechanisms designed for that purpose.

 

[gluadys]

Random copy errors explain nothing, adaptations have to be the result of molecular mechanisms designed for that purpose.

Since when is random copy error not a molecular mechanism? Just what do you think a "copy error" consists of if not a redistribution of molecules?

Whether the consequence of that molecular change is adaptive or not awaits a trial in the life-form which inherits it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure there are other possible molecular causes, Mark. Radiation for one.
Of course, in your terminology, this is still "damage" to the DNA that doesn't get repaired. Any mutation of any type, whatever the cause, may, at times, be beneficial.

That is by design. All systems have parameters, tolerances, variances. There are a score of Repair DNA that serve just to fix any mutations that are out of tolerance. Some still get through though, and cause great bodily harm to a stable system. There is not one mutation that is remotely beneficial that raise up a person health above average. All know "beneficial" variants are observed to be stop-gap solutions to harmful diseases. None actually improve the condition of the general population.

 

[Gottservant]

I was going to give a terse summary of the preceding, but I find we agree more than we disagree, which is desirable, so I will just move on to the more emotional highlights that I think we can both learn from.

Do you consciously will the production of sperm? Does your desire or will-power impact the quality and character of your sperm cells? Is it your will or desire that specifies which changes, if any, from your parents' genomes will appear in the newly-generated sperm cells? And is it you or God who chooses which of several million sperm will fertilize an egg in your partner's body?

Ever been aroused? It is not God alone that does that.

It doesn't matter how much information there is in one's emotions or thoughts if they cannot cause molecular changes or chemical reactions or impact the distribution of chromosomes in meiotic cell division or determine which sperm fertilizes which egg, or set the ecological conditions under which an organism will live and the challenges it will face.

As I see it, the only Being of which it may be true that thought, desire and will can influence all these things is God.

And we are in whose image? (Meaning we have what qualities?)

True. This is why you seldom see much evolutionary change in large, stable populations with a significant geographical range. It takes much time for an evolutionary change to spread through this kind of population and before an adaptation has much impact, the selection pressures have changed to favour a different adaptation. This was observed on a small scale when Peter and Rosemary Grant studied the finches of the Galapagos through a severe drought followed a few years later by abundant rain. Under drought conditions, there was a push toward larger body size and larger, stronger beaks. Under rainy conditions, this was relaxed and smaller birds with smaller beaks became more numerous again. Over geological time, this would get averaged out.

This is also why the most dramatic examples of evolutionary change occur on the periphery of habitat zones, in small relatively isolated pockets of the population. An adaptation can spread more quickly through the small population, and there are often special conditions that favour a change that endure long enough for the adaptation to take hold.

This where I think we agree, although you seem to stand shy of the mark. I am saying "enduring adaptations become genetically ingrained"; you seem to be saying "enduring adaptations have an influence that can come and go". So let me repeat what I am saying as clearly as I can, so that you can see the depth of it "it is evolutionarily advantageous, by the mechanisms of evolution, for organisms to emerge into species, as codified examples of their species, without room for change to further species." The key features of this argument is that the mechanism recedes to the background and the designation of the species becomes codified (hard-wired).

Now look at how close you come:

So you are right--there does need to be sustained "focus" that moves a species in a particular direction over generations to realize an adaptation.

From there, you are still able to argue that the genome may radically alter over time, which is utterly untenable for someone who understands that God designs by limitation and restraint.

Oh absolutely. That is why I keep telling you that evolution is not an accident. It is not a matter of chance. In the long term, it is selection that outlives random mutation and really sets the ground rules of evolution.


It is notable that virtually all evolution-denying literature downplays the crucial role of selection while focusing on the randomness of mutational events. That is why people get confused into thinking that evolution is all a matter of chance and accident.

But evolution actually has rules and patterns that are understandable if one takes the time to learn them.

I know "what" you are saying here and I even agree with the "sentiment", that things do not simply sway in the wind, even at the level of "mistake and survival, mistake and survival" but you must see my point that the theory is drastically short of understanding why things remain fixed after a certain point in their development, much less how this is maintained over projected periods of time, or even how it is transcended, which to your credit you believe in the significance of (because it means contemplating God no doubt) despite the fact that you would be treated with contempt by many Evolutionists.

Let me ask you this: at what point in the past did the information that was to become human exist, in such a way that justifies you believing that we could transcend our current manifestation (as human)?

The reason I ask is simple: if you can show that the information is somehow there, you will be able to justify chance transcendence that is guaranteed by God to be protected on the grounds of a preexisting promise. However, I do not think you will find there is anything there. I think that as you look into space, you will find that there is nothing but a vast empty vacuum that is singularly indifferent to your desire to be anything other than what you are.

I haven't even started on the volatility of encounters with fluctuating selection pressures (and the impossibility of adapting to them consistently), yet, come to think of it.