Understanding Evolution

[justlookinla]

This is like asking for an example of a rock falling "upwards" in order to support the idea of gravity.

Speciation is pretty much a vertical process. A species speciates into a sub-species.

Canines don't produce primates. They produce more canines. Mammals don't produce reptiles. They produce more mammals.

Which was first? The canine or the primate or the mammal or the reptile....or the pine tree?

 

[Dizredux]

You confuse a bird with an elephant? Of course not. But elephants produced elephants produce elephants. Maybe the first life form was an elephant?

You're not addressing the issue at all.

Why on earth should anyone try to address something this, and I hate to say it, stupid.

This is, as far as I know, the first and only time I have called an idea stupid on the forum but I can find no other description that fits.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

You confuse a bird with an elephant?

Do you confuse an ostrich with a finch? Finches don't produce ostriches, do they?

 

[justlookinla]

The descendants of birds will always be birds even if they don't really look exactly like birds (kiwi's, penguins...). Not that hard to figure out.

So, the descendant of birds are birds, therefore the first life form was a bird?

Your past behavior indicates that explaining one's position is an exercise in futility when dealing with you.
Because the first bird had ancestors that were not birds, as shown from fossil evidence.

Ah! So something other than birds produce birds?

Address the issue.

Perhaps, but at least they don't make that position look stupid. You however seem to revel in making the idea of God creating the universe look as absurd and stupid as possible.

I don't have to make atheistic Darwinist creationist faith based guesses and suppositions look stupid, they are very capable of doing that on their own.

 

[justlookinla]

Now, I expect justlookinla to return with some "come back" that smells a lot like "thumbs are fingers, therefor all fingers are thumbs".

It seems that birds will produce something other than birds if something other than a bird produced a bird.

All created by time and chance of course.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Which was first? The canine or the primate or the mammal or the reptile....or the pine tree?

Hmm, I forget if conifers came before reptiles. Reptiles came before mammals, that one I know for sure, I think canines before primates, though obviously dogs came after humans.

 

[justlookinla]

Just, this is so confused I am not sure of how to tackle it.

Tackle this....

DIZ: "You have been shown over and over that evolution is not a product of chance or is random. You have had it carefully explained and demonstrated where this is not true. After all this time, to continue to say this is simply dishonest and rather an odd (goofy) thing to continue to say."
Others disagree with you, not only me....

"Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random."

"Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but. Natural selection favours mutations that provide some advantage (see Evolution promotes the survival of species), and the physical world imposes very strict limits on what works and what doesn't. The result is that organisms evolve in particular directions."

Evolution myths: Evolution is random - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist​

Tackle the fact that your claim isn't correct. Then explain how those statements are incorrect.

The amazing thing was for you to come back with this to support your statement:

Just Do you even realize that you are using something that disagrees with your claim that evolution is random and agrees with me on the nonrandom aspects of natural selection.

My claim is that atheistic Darwinist creationism has the view that humanity is the result of ONLY random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless. The references I gave supports that position.

Just You have it very confused and cannot seem to understand what is being said. Evolution has its random aspects but natural selection is far from random so it falsifies you contention that evolution is a product of chance or random processes. You even post evidence that agrees with me and disagrees with you. You seem to not be able to understand what you are saying which is, at least to me, rather unique.

I haven't claimed that natural selection is random or by chance, the random/chance portion of atheistic Darwinist evolution is that "random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation" Do you agree with that statement? How about this one...."Why one group of birds took one route and not another probably depended entirely on chance mutations, in particular individuals, that affected beak size and shape." Both are from the references I gave above.

So, it's up to you to agree or disagree with the sources provided concerning the random/chance creationist part of atheistic Darwinist evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Lets say I am the coach of a football team and I have players trying out for my team and I am assessing which ones I want to keep.

Lets say I select all of the fastest players vs the bigger slower but stronger players. Wouldn't I be guiding the direction of my team by how I select the players?

1. You are assessing. Natural Selection does not assess.
2. You are determining that faster players are the direction you wish to take the team. Natural Selection does not have a goal. It has no set direction to take "the team".

The fact that the organisms live is not a direction but a simple successful event that passes on the same and if the environment changes then they either live or die based on whether they have a beneficial mutation that allows them to adapt to this new environment.

 

[justlookinla]

Why on earth should anyone try to address something this, and I hate to say it, stupid.

Nah, you don't hate it. Your insults are very very common.

This is, as far as I know, the first and only time I have called an idea stupid on the forum but I can find no other description that fits.

Dizredux

I guess there's a first time for everything.

 

[justlookinla]

Hmm, I forget if conifers came before reptiles. Reptiles came before mammals, that one I know for sure, I think canines before primates, though obviously dogs came after humans.

Soooo....new life forms are created...how?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Soooo....new life forms are created...how?

Gradually, as mutations over successive generations and environmental changes eventually shape the recent generation to be notably different and distinct from the initial species of the first generation monitored.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not, you are belittling yourself by believing such nonsense.

Once, if you really wanted to know about evolution you would read about it for yourself but you don't, why is that?
we both know why, because you know full well that if you saw for yourself what evolution was about you might stop being a creationist and that you could never allow, why do creationist parents stop their children from learning about evolution? because they know it kills creationism that's why.

You want first and foremost to believe what you believe and if anything even comes close to stopping you doing that it must be squashed and dismissed before it can do any damage, if creationists had open minds they would never be creationists..

I was not raised in a religious home. I studied about evolution prior to becoming a born again Christian.

 

[justlookinla]

Gradually, as mutations over successive generations and environmental changes eventually shape the recent generation to be notably different and distinct from the initial species of the first generation monitored.

Thank you. Now, do you have evidence that we were created by mutations changing previous life forms into new life forms which had mutations changing them into new life forms, each becoming more complex than the previous, solely by mutations being the engine which drives the change?

 

[Oncedeceived]

PaulOnceOnce Then pray tell why do you make such a demand as "prove it"?

If one makes a statement with absolute certainty they must be prepared to prove that which they feel is absolutely certain.

The universe is set up where certain things are going to happen whether God is involved or not, whether we believe it or not. Gravity will make water flow downhill, gravity and chance determine the shape of moons and planets and so on. These things are simply physics and can be accurately predicted. Evolution is going to happen if the situation is correct (three factors). Again whether or not God has direct involvement or set up the system that way, these things are going to happen so to ask Paul to "prove" that intelligent design was *not* involved is just plain foolish.

You don't find it foolish to make a claim that there is no God involvement in the processes? You don't find it foolish to find that the universe is governed by the laws of physics which are uppermost in determining that these things are going to happen to claim they will happen whether or not God has direct involvement? How do you or Paul determine that the laws of physics would "happen" if God was not involved?

Water flows downhill due to gravity. The path that water can be accurately predicted by simple typology. This alone validates Paul's statement that non random processes can occur absent intelligent design.

How do you and Paul determine that gravity is not due to God's involvement?

How does one provide evidence that no intelligent design is involved in any physical process? You can't.

So why claim He isn't?

Study the logic book you bought.

Maybe you should.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you. Now, do you have evidence that we were created by mutations changing previous life forms into new life forms which had mutations changing them into new life forms, each becoming more complex than the previous, solely by mutations being the engine which drives the change?

Still happens to this day, all humans have more than 50 genetic mutations. Each one has a change of influencing phenotype. Most don't actually do anything, some are benevolent, others bad, others a combination of good and bad to varying degrees...

But, say, for a starting population of 100 individuals that are isolated from the main population, that every 5th generation has a mutation that is benevolent occur and establish. Could be disease resistance, could be improved muscle strength, whatever. These traits improve survival and reproductive success. Thus, in successive generations these traits become increasingly more common until all members of a generation have the trait. And this doesn't just go for one trait at a time, linked genes, coinciding mutations, and other factors can make this generation different from the initial one in many ways.

I use the example of 100 individuals because the larger the interbreeding population, the slower generally evolution occurs. As it happens, humans used to stay in groups even smaller than that.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The amazing thing is folks are claiming that birds will always produce birds which results in the conclusion that the first life form from long long ago was a bird.

And you will always produce your children so the first human was your child.

 

[justlookinla]

Still happens to this day, all humans have more than 50 genetic mutations. Each one has a change of influencing phenotype. Most don't actually do anything, some are benevolent, others bad, others a combination of good and bad to varying degrees...

But we haven't observed mutations producing new life forms, have we?

But, say, for a starting population of 100 individuals that are isolated from the main population, that every 5th generation has a mutation that is benevolent occur and establish. Could be disease resistance, could be improved muscle strength, whatever. These traits improve survival and reproductive success. Thus, in successive generations these traits become increasingly more common until all members of a generation have the trait. And this doesn't just go for one trait at a time, linked genes, coinciding mutations, and other factors can make this generation different from the initial one in many ways.

The finch's beak is an example of this. But they were still finches.

I use the example of 100 individuals because the larger the interbreeding population, the slower generally evolution occurs. As it happens, humans used to stay in groups even smaller than that.

Ok.

 

[justlookinla]

And you will always produce your children so the first human was your child.

The first life form was a human?

 

[PsychoSarah]

But we haven't observed mutations producing new life forms, have we?



The finch's beak is an example of this. But they were still finches.



Ok.

They were still finches. But no longer the same species, they wouldn't interbreed with each other anymore. You do realize the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is less than 5%, right? And we only share ancestry with them, we didn't evolve from them. We know the size of the human genome, and how many mutations roughly we experience per generation. You can look them up, and do some very rough math to approximate how many generations it takes to make a full 1% change to our genome, and go from there.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Illusion are something that can be proven unless you want to go as far as the whole universe is an illusion. If I see a magician saw a girl in half and made whole again I could claimed this is evidence you can saw people in half and live. If the magician claimed "No, it's an illusion" and I say prove it then the magician could easily show it's an illusion.

Atheist love to claim something is an illusion without proving it is. Normally people don't believe something is an illusion unless proven otherwise. I'm with you, until proven otherwise I will hold on to the fact designs found nature are actual designs. Atheism doesn't seem very logical to me.

Illusion is something that appears to be something it is not. The molecular machines are what they appear to be; joints, gears, propellers, turnstiles, brakes, and clutches which form motors, walking "legs", pulleys, tweezers, vehicles, assembly lines, transportation networks, intelligent error-checking systems, and much more. These nano-"factories" are more efficient than man made ones by far. These are not illusions but factual systems that are what we see by humans in their factories and inventions. To claim they only "appear" to be designed and are an illusion of design is not logical to me.