Presupposition: mutation comes before adaptation - justified *how*?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your control is that you have been shown certain things that are good interpretations of what is possible and that what you share of them with your young, is up to you.

Jacob did this with goats in the Bible.

Believing you have an answer, for one particular interpretation in one particular environment, is not enough - you must keep interpreting the difference between what you have been shown and will show, until your young see the difference.

This cannot be possible, as long as you are refusing a qualified difference from being interpreted another way: it's not wrong to keep something being interpreted another way, if you continue to show strength for what it was, to your God - but you are not doing that!

The parable of Jacob and the goats is not a scientific fact, it's a story, and a very bad one at that. You cannot make animals change their colours by placing sticks in front of them, that's not evolution let along animal husbandry.

The rest of your comment is just useless and baseless nonsense. And I'm going to repeat my final point since you ignored it: Do you honestly even want to learn anything? Because you've never once shown any interest in doing so.

 

[Shemjaza]

The problem for you, is that you are reattributing adaptation on the basis of an adaptation of understanding, that you say has your approval.

We are talking about evolution, then we should use consistent definitions.

Evolution only applies to traits of species that are genetic in origin.

If you want to talk about some other trait, feature or event then evolution isn't relevant.

The p factor, is the idea that being good at certain things, makes you good at other things, by virtue of the good you initially develop.

That's still just an adaptation with more than one consequence.

Species gain more adaptions over the generations... individuals do not.

It is the same word, how can it not be "coherent"? "Coherence only comes from other words"?

It is the same word, but the sentence doesn't make sense.

For example as an explanation of what a cake is: "The cake is made from cake!" is using the same word, but the sentence is meaningless.

There is no subtext to your comments; a good book brings context and meaning into view, using subtext to help you tell what is important and what not - as Evolutionists you have really been failing on this front. Jesus told me to "Watch" what you consider "sinless interpretation" (as you call "legitimate scientific understanding) and I have been keeping His Word.

I am not trying to have any subtext in my words.

I do not think it's reasonable to think "sinless interpretation" and "legitimate scientific understanding" of as the same thing.

 

[Gottservant]

If I said "in the beginning, God had to be first"

would you believe me?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If I said "in the beginning, God had to be first"

would you believe me?

What does this have to do with what we've been talking about? (Other than a clear attempt at you wanting to run away...)

 

[Gottservant]

You're saying "in the beginning, mutation had to be first"

(run? where?)

the AFL Grand Final is on, and I don't want to miss it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're saying "in the beginning, mutation had to be first"

(run? where?)

the AFL Grand Final is on, and I don't want to miss it?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, and you know it.

 

[Gottservant]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, and you know it.

I know most things can be said, another way to what they actually need to be - what's the difference? If you don't get what you want from me, as an Evolutionist... what does your theory of Evolution say that you should do? I was happy to rephrase what I believe for you, but you can't do that for me?

The proposition remains: if you are not saying mutation comes first, when you say "mutation has to come before adaptation", what are you saying?

 

[Gottservant]

We are talking about evolution, then we should use consistent definitions.

Evolution only applies to traits of species that are genetic in origin.

But whether that species lives or dies, is subjective? Somethings live then die, other things die then live?

If you want to talk about some other trait, feature or event then evolution isn't relevant.

So now you are saying "in the beginning, Evolution had to be first" - wow! you guys are so confusing!

That's still just an adaptation with more than one consequence.

Species gain more adaptions over the generations... individuals do not.

An adaptation can't have more than one consequence, but a mutation can? Can I get a word of consistency here?

It is the same word, but the sentence doesn't make sense.

For example as an explanation of what a cake is: "The cake is made from cake!" is using the same word, but the sentence is meaningless.

The sentence makes sense... it implies something about how hard it is to get cake to remain consistent with the recipe?

I am not trying to have any subtext in my words.

I do not think it's reasonable to think "sinless interpretation" and "legitimate scientific understanding" of as the same thing.

Put it this way, if Jesus said "Go the extra mile" what does that apply to, when it comes to Evolution?

 

[Gottservant]

The parable of Jacob and the goats is not a scientific fact, it's a story, and a very bad one at that. You cannot make animals change their colours by placing sticks in front of them, that's not evolution let along animal husbandry.

The rest of your comment is just useless and baseless nonsense. And I'm going to repeat my final point since you ignored it: Do you honestly even want to learn anything? Because you've never once shown any interest in doing so.

It was a scientific experiment, you just refuse to believe that someone could be inspired by God to do better with Creation than had ever been done with Evolution before.

As to learning, there are plenty of things that I have found true about the words of Jesus, I am learning all the time to reinterpret and resubjectify those words in new contexts - as creates more meaning, when looked at from the greater perspective of God's inspiration of mankind. I have never, even once, used Jesus' words to confuse someone about the truth - if anything that should be humbling for an Evolutionist? You guys basically sell people strife in an atheoretical bubble wrap, whose only innocence is that you never really know what it means?

 

[Larniavc]

you don't collapse from total to nothing

Yes it does. Because to collapse in this context is to die.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes, but if you doubt your Evolution, your first natural reaction is to "fear that it will be taken"? That's just psychology 101.

I have a degree in Psychology. That is not psychology 101.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes it does. Because to collapse in this context is to die.

Which God is able resurrect (more rapidly, than is to die in stages)...

The whole problem here is you say "if God resurrects it, its not Evolution (by mutation)" - which is my whole point: there is a reason to put "adaptation" first, you can escape death more easily and lightly (compromising some adaptations in the process, perhaps, but not all of them and certainly not in waiting for them to adapt further).

You can evolve adaptations on their own, faster than you can mutate one at a time (selah)

 

[Gottservant]

I have a degree in Psychology. That is not psychology 101.

The Bible is quoted as saying that the foolish servant hid his master's money - why would the servant do that, if there was nothing to be feared?

 

[Larniavc]

If I said "in the beginning, God had to be first"

would you believe me?

No.

 

[Larniavc]

So now you are saying "in the beginning, Evolution had to be first" - wow! you guys are so confusing!

No one said that. In the 'beginning' there was no evolution in the universe for ages because life hadn't happened in that early epoch.

 

[Gottservant]

No one said that. In the 'beginning' there was no evolution in the universe for ages because life hadn't happened in that early epoch.

So you are saying "in the beginning, time leading up to Evolution, had to come first"?

 

[Larniavc]

Which God is able resurrect (more rapidly, than is to die in stages)...

The whole problem here is you say "if God resurrects it, its not Evolution (by mutation)" - which is my whole point: there is a reason to put "adaptation" first, you can escape death more easily and lightly (compromising some adaptations in the process, perhaps, but not all of them and certainly not in waiting for them to adapt further).

You can evolve adaptations on their own, faster than you can mutate one at a time (selah)

Please: try to think about this without the Bible. This is a science not religion thread.

 

[Larniavc]

So you are saying "in the beginning, time leading up to Evolution, had to come first"?

The universe existed long before life existed in the universe.

 

[Larniavc]

The Bible is quoted as saying that the foolish servant hid his master's money - why would the servant do that, if there was nothing to be feared?

Dunno. It has nothing to do with Psychology 101.

 

[Larniavc]

You can evolve adaptations on their own, faster than you can mutate one at a time (selah)

Individuals do not evolve.