If evolution is true

[Shemjaza]

A "fact" with what style?

Fact is that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that during reproduction the genes of an offspring can alter slightly so there are genetic patterns not found in the parents.

That is what a mutation is. Some of these mutations can change how the living thing develops in new ways.

There is something that entices you to adapt, that is different from mutating - any one else would call that a "choice"?

You won't "adapt" until you see a mutation "first"?

No. That is entirely false.

Neither adaption nor mutation happen over your lifetime.

An adaption with regards top evolution is a trait found in a species that give it an advantage on dealing with its environment... the known origin of these changes is mutations.

At no point is any choice possible in this scenario.

 

[Gottservant]

Fact is that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that during reproduction the genes of an offspring can alter slightly so there are genetic patterns not found in the parents.

Yes, but the "style" is it aggressive, or passive or something else?

That is what a mutation is. Some of these mutations can change how the living thing develops in new ways.


No. That is entirely false.

Neither adaption nor mutation happen over your lifetime.

So it's something that happens continually, for which there is a beginning and an end - but no choice? What gets in the way of it being a choice?

If an adaptation is a self-stimulating adaptation, it is still not able to stimulate adaptations like it?

As in, you mean to say that selection pressures can stimulate mutations, but they can't stimulate adaptations?

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, but the "style" is it aggressive, or passive or something else?

I don't really understand how facts can have styles... but I guess, I'd say it was a pretty blandly neutral fact.

So it's something that happens continually, for which there is a beginning and an end - but no choice? What gets in the way of it being a choice?

It can't be a choice because it has already happened before you get to choose.

It's a part of your genetic makeup, it's already in place before you are even born.

(EDIT: "it can't be a choice" not "it can be a choice")

If an adaptation is a self-stimulating adaptation, it is still not able to stimulate adaptations like it?

As in, you mean to say that selection pressures can stimulate mutations, but they can't stimulate adaptations?

Except they aren't.

Adaptations are traits found in a species that confer an advantage... the variation of traits comes from mutations, but they are completely undirected.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't really understand how facts can have styles... but I guess, I'd say it was a pretty blandly neutral fact.

Not how it tastes! If you are uninspired, then so be it,, but at least address which emotion you prefer to be the driving force, behind it.

It can be a choice because it has already happened before you get to choose.

You mean my Mum asked my Dad to change my DNA, for Evolution? Even though they are both Creationists?

It's a part of your genetic makeup, it's already in place before you are even born.

The mutations or the adaptations? They can't be in a different order?

Except they aren't.

Adaptations are traits found in a species that confer an advantage... the variation of traits comes from mutations, but they are completely undirected.

There is no advantage, to putting adaptations first? Not even other adaptations?

This really is starting to sound like philosophy, passed off as theory (for purely egotistical reasons?)?

 

[Shemjaza]

Not how it tastes! If you are uninspired, then so be it,, but at least address which emotion you prefer to be the driving force, behind it.

I honestly don't have strong feelings about the existence of mutations.

You mean my Mum asked my Dad to change my DNA, for Evolution? Even though they are both Creationists?

No, it wasn't their choice either.

You got half your genes from your mum and half from your dad... and a very few just changed randomly in the mix.

The mutations or the adaptations? They can't be in a different order?

Adaptations are caused by mutations. So the mutation has to come first.

There is no advantage, to putting adaptations first? Not even other adaptations?

It's just not possible. An adaptation is made possible by changes caused by mutation.

This really is starting to sound like philosophy, passed off as theory (for purely egotistical reasons?)?

It really isn't.

Like I said earlier, I don't have an emotional attachment to the facts of reproduction and genetics... it's just facts about the world.

 

[Gottservant]

I honestly don't have strong feelings about the existence of mutations.

I have strong feelings about the Word of God - is there a chance I am more evolved at scripture than you were?

No, it wasn't their choice either.

You got half your genes from your mum and half from your dad... and a very few just changed randomly in the mix.

My Mum and Dad did some random things, but not everything - some things they kept the same (which is part of the reason I am writing to you now?)

Adaptations are caused by mutations. So the mutation has to come first.

That is purely taste, as far as I can see. If you look back at history, you will see that God allows a species to do certain things, but not everything; so God sends messengers to make it clear, what can be done and what can't - for example, I can't force you to forget your memories - if I did, God would judge me.

If you are playing god, you will get away with saying "mutations are more powerful than adaptations", but eventually God will put a stop to it - as long as you aren't getting power from me, as though my adaptations aren't good enough, you will survive, but anything beyond that you will have to agree with God, what place adaptation has in my development (I don't give up, God takes over).

It's just not possible. An adaptation is made possible by changes caused by mutation.

Lots of little changes of mutation, or something big? An adaptation can't inspire one way and then another - that makes no sense?

It really isn't.

Like I said earlier, I don't have an emotional attachment to the facts of reproduction and genetics... it's just facts about the world.

Yes but you need those facts to resurge in other contexts than the one you first found them in? You can't adapt in general, if you limit the niche in which you evolved, to the first possible environment you adapted to?

I suspect you think something resembling a scientific contingency, is better than a conscience that is undefined - and your neutrality is some sort of outgrowth of that possibility - but I put it to you that even if you are the most evolved creature on the planet, unless you do something specific on the basis of that position, that is effectively "a good work", you will lose that place (and no one will help you get it back?)? I mean you can't scientifically verify anything, without being obliged to help that fact continue, at some point.

The whole point of the direction of my questions, is at least in part to discern what it is I can do like you, with the justification that the science was persuasive - I am not alienating anyone, or suggesting that certain types of Evolution are inferior, just that there is something persuasive about the Word of God and a possibility that that could be shared with Evolution or alternatively not shared, depending on what will be considered more effective in this context, in saving those that can't evolve in the way they need to or won't for circumstances they can't change. This is because beyond being human, humanity needs to be able to communicate the difference that God has made, even if the language in which it is communicated is a distortion of what God does anyway (for what He created, or let evolve, to the extent that they flourished more).

Simply put: there are more reasons to evolve, than there are expectations that Evolution happen in a certain order when it does (sorry, but I just can't accept a piecemeal approach being the only possibility to adaptation - I am not rejecting mutation, but I continue to keep it in a context that is inspiring, if not for you, then for those who will grow tired of doing it "the old way" that you continue to espouse "is normal").

 

[Shemjaza]

I have strong feelings about the Word of God - is there a chance I am more evolved at scripture than you were?

Beliefs and strong feelings are not how you test if something is true.

Being "evolved at scripture" is not a coherent idea.

We're both the same species, in the same time period, is the same connected population, so neither of us are "more evolved" in any way.

My Mum and Dad did some random things, but not everything - some things they kept the same (which is part of the reason I am writing to you now?)

They didn't choose your genes and they didn't choose your mutations... those all came from the physical processes that happened at your conception. You didn't choose it, they didn't choose it.

That is purely taste, as far as I can see. If you look back at history, you will see that God allows a species to do certain things, but not everything; so God sends messengers to make it clear, what can be done and what can't - for example, I can't force you to forget your memories - if I did, God would judge me.

None of that is in any way connected to what adaptions are and what we have evidence for in history.

If you are playing god, you will get away with saying "mutations are more powerful than adaptations", but eventually God will put a stop to it - as long as you aren't getting power from me, as though my adaptations aren't good enough, you will survive, but anything beyond that you will have to agree with God, what place adaptation has in my development (I don't give up, God takes over).

No on is playing God and no one is saying "mutations are more powerful than adaptations", because that doesn't make sense.

Mutations are just random genetic changes.

Some of those random genetic changes change how a living thing functions in the world.

If that change is function is helpful, then it is called an adaptation.

Lots of little changes of mutation, or something big? An adaptation can't inspire one way and then another - that makes no sense?

Because there isn't any choice, then there can be no inspiration.

Yes but you need those facts to resurge in other contexts than the one you first found them in? You can't adapt in general, if you limit the niche in which you evolved, to the first possible environment you adapted to?

You are still adding in choices where there are none.

I suspect you think something resembling a scientific contingency, is better than a conscience that is undefined - and your neutrality is some sort of outgrowth of that possibility - but I put it to you that even if you are the most evolved creature on the planet, unless you do something specific on the basis of that position, that is effectively "a good work", you will lose that place (and no one will help you get it back?)? I mean you can't scientifically verify anything, without being obliged to help that fact continue, at some point.

The whole point of the direction of my questions, is at least in part to discern what it is I can do like you, with the justification that the science was persuasive - I am not alienating anyone, or suggesting that certain types of Evolution are inferior, just that there is something persuasive about the Word of God and a possibility that that could be shared with Evolution or alternatively not shared, depending on what will be considered more effective in this context, in saving those that can't evolve in the way they need to or won't for circumstances they can't change. This is because beyond being human, humanity needs to be able to communicate the difference that God has made, even if the language in which it is communicated is a distortion of what God does anyway (for what He created, or let evolve, to the extent that they flourished more).

Simply put: there are more reasons to evolve, than there are expectations that Evolution happen in a certain order when it does (sorry, but I just can't accept a piecemeal approach being the only possibility to adaptation - I am not rejecting mutation, but I continue to keep it in a context that is inspiring, if not for you, then for those who will grow tired of doing it "the old way" that you continue to espouse "is normal").

It's a matter of context and evidence.

Evolution and adaptations are irrelevant to your life as an individual.

Changes to your beliefs, attitudes and actions are vitally important to how you live your life and how you see the world... and all of that doesn't change evolution in any way.

Evolution changes explain the genetic history of Homo sapiens... they have nothing to do with how an individual forms their beliefs and lives their life.

Changing from a miserable person to a happy person is not evolution.

Changing from a weak and sickly person to a fit and healthy one is not evolution.

Changing from an atheist to a Christian is not evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

Beliefs and strong feelings are not how you test if something is true.

Being "evolved at scripture" is not a coherent idea.

We're both the same species, in the same time period, is the same connected population, so neither of us are "more evolved" in any way.

Do you have wisdom teeth?

They didn't choose your genes and they didn't choose your mutations... those all came from the physical processes that happened at your conception. You didn't choose it, they didn't choose it.

I was shown the difference between faith and greater faith, and have been able to live according to faith from that time. The children that come after me, will see the same definition and will be able to have children with the same faith, themselves. What about that, is "an Evolution" of the population we represent together?

None of that is in any way connected to what adaptions are and what we have evidence for in history.



No on is playing God and no one is saying "mutations are more powerful than adaptations", because that doesn't make sense.

Mutations are just random genetic changes.

Some of those random genetic changes change how a living thing functions in the world.

If that change is function is helpful, then it is called an adaptation.



Because there isn't any choice, then there can be no inspiration.



You are still adding in choices where there are none.



It's a matter of context and evidence.

Context is subjective, evidence is interpretative.

Evolution and adaptations are irrelevant to your life as an individual.

Changes to your beliefs, attitudes and actions are vitally important to how you live your life and how you see the world... and all of that doesn't change evolution in any way.

Evolution changes explain the genetic history of Homo sapiens... they have nothing to do with how an individual forms their beliefs and lives their life.

Changing from a miserable person to a happy person is not evolution.

Changing from a weak and sickly person to a fit and healthy one is not evolution.

Changing from an atheist to a Christian is not evolution.

People had clocks, then they had wrist watches, then they had fitbits - if fitbits hadn't advertised, they might never have caught on, on the other hand no amount of advertising fitbits would help clocks become wristwatches. People's belief and actions have consequence, you can't simply pick and choose whole chunks of life and call them "Evolved" without the observation in which they take place meaning something.

I really am tired of saying "here is one choice and there is another" only to have you say "no the thing we say it is, is whole cloth" - whole cloth, is not whole cloth; whole cloth is a part of cloth, used in example of the unreasonableness of expecting everything to be of one great relevance.

Prove to me that you are not a fool, and tell me what it is about Evolution that makes sense at some times and not at others? The Bible does not apply, to humanity, once humanity is dead and gone - that is where I stand on the importance of interpreting the Word of God correctly.

 

[Shemjaza]

Do you have wisdom teeth?

Not any more, but I was born with some.

This is possibly a good example.

The trait "not born with wisdom teeth" is probably a beneficial one... but it doesn't make the individuals with it "more evolved" than others in the same population.

Species evolve, not individuals.

I was shown the difference between faith and greater faith, and have been able to live according to faith from that time. The children that come after me, will see the same definition and will be able to have children with the same faith, themselves. What about that, is "an Evolution" of the population we represent together?

You haven't shown the difference between faith and greater faith.

Also faith has nothing to do with evolution.

You could never have any biological children, yet you could potentially teach thousands about your beliefs... or you could be the parent to a hundred children and never tell them a word.

Your physical, genetic makeup wasn't your choice and it wasn't your parents choice.

Context is subjective, evidence is interpretative.

Which is why we have to be specific in our definitions and context.

People had clocks, then they had wrist watches, then they had fitbits - if fitbits hadn't advertised, they might never have caught on, on the other hand no amount of advertising fitbits would help clocks become wristwatches. People's belief and actions have consequence, you can't simply pick and choose whole chunks of life and call them "Evolved" without the observation in which they take place meaning something.

Clocks, watches and fitbits are not alive and don't evolve.

People's belief and actions have consequence, but that is irrelevant to the evidence for evolut

I really am tired of saying "here is one choice and there is another" only to have you say "no the thing we say it is, is whole cloth" - whole cloth, is not whole cloth; whole cloth is a part of cloth, used in example of the unreasonableness of expecting everything to be of one great relevance.

If something is not a choice, it doesn't matter how many times or in how many ways you call it a choice... it's still not a choice.

Prove to me that you are not a fool, and tell me what it is about Evolution that makes sense at some times and not at others? The Bible does not apply, to humanity, once humanity is dead and gone - that is where I stand on the importance of interpreting the Word of God correctly.

It doesn't make sense to you because you do not know how evolution works and refuse to accept that you are mistaken.

If you try and accept what others say about a topic, but refuse to accept that you could be wrong... then nothing will ever make sense.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It seems there is a double bind, that Evolutionists both want the change, but not the instinct that encourages it?

There's no double-blind. Evolution is a natural process that evolutionists observe and describe. Like the passing of the seasons, it makes no difference what they want or don't want.

 

[VirOptimus]

Of course its from faith... do you think I'm going to deny it? And, if I start having any doubts, all I have to do is listen to self-proclaimed scientists for a little while and the thought passes.


If you're so sure of what I know and don't know, why did you even ask?


Don't scientists, such as yourself, do this as well?

Is there a difference between science and faith?

What, in your own words, do a scientific theory entail?

 

[inquiring mind]

Is there a difference between science and faith?

Of course there is.

What, in your own words, do a scientific theory entail?

Small minds often accomplishing extraordinary things within areas of their understanding, and sometimes projecting and then presenting believable concepts when they operate outside it. Do you have an answer in your own words?

 

[VirOptimus]

Of course there is.

What is the difference according to you?

Small minds often accomplishing extraordinary things within areas of their understanding, and sometimes projecting and then presenting believable concepts when they operate outside it. Do you have an answer in your own words?

Thats word salad that doesnt answer my question. Again; what does a scientific theory entail according to you.

 

[inquiring mind]

What is the difference according to you?

Science and Faith should be self-explanatory. Science often fudges though... the "and sometimes projecting and then presenting believable concepts when they operate outside it" part of the 'in my own words' scientific theory entailment you asked for and did't like.

Thats word salad that doesnt answer my question. Again; what does a scientific theory entail according to you.

So, you really want my explanation in someone elses words... is that correct?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, you really want my explanation in someone elses words... is that correct?

No, they want an explanation that actually makes sense. What you wrote did not make sense.

What is a scientific theory to you?

 

[VirOptimus]

Science and Faith should be self-explanatory. Science often fudges though... the "and sometimes projecting and then presenting believable concepts when they operate outside it" part of the 'in my own words' scientific theory entailment you asked for and did't like.


So, you really want my explanation in someone elses words... is that correct?

I see, you actually dont know what science is.

 

[Astrophile]

I hate to start ping-ponging articles, but like I said this is your opinion, and no one knows for sure. This article is 10 years old and it seems to dispute your thoughts on the subject. Even so, I noticed they couldn't keep from connecting dots either.
Scientists show that modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus

So do you accept that the dating of the extinction of Homo erectus at about 500,000 years ago is valid, and that Homo erectus and Homo sapiens were not created together about 6,000 years ago?

 

[inquiring mind]

So do you accept that the dating of the extinction of Homo erectus at about 500,000 years ago is valid, and that Homo erectus and Homo sapiens were not created together about 6,000 years ago?

Your question is laden with ‘time,’ which is the least understood of the four most comprehended dimensions. The limits of our understanding make it the only one that is unidirectional with a relatively constant speed. It’s those conditions that keep you in your evolutionary box, and tend to easily make creationist look ridiculous. But, thinking outside your box, I think it possible that God created everything on a timescale we do not fathom. That's why an answer to questions like this will usually be problematic to creationists who try to think it through in your box, and at best an 'it had to be our way' to evolutionists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your question is laden with ‘time,’ which is the least understood of the four most comprehended dimensions. The limits of our understanding make it the only one that is unidirectional with a relatively constant speed. It’s those conditions that keep you in your evolutionary box, and tend to easily make creationist look ridiculous. But, thinking outside your box, I think it possible that God created everything on a timescale we do not fathom. That's why an answer to questions like this will usually be problematic to creationists who try to think it through in your box, and at best an 'it had to be our way' to evolutionists.

I think it's kind of telling that you have to bring up time in everything whenever anyone asks you about science.

It makes is very easy for you to ignore what science tells us about God's actual creation.

 

[Astrophile]

I hate to start ping-ponging articles, but like I said this is your opinion, and no one knows for sure. This article is 10 years old and it seems to dispute your thoughts on the subject. Even so, I noticed they couldn't keep from connecting dots either.
Scientists show that modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus

Your question is laden with ‘time,’ which is the least understood of the four most comprehended dimensions. The limits of our understanding make it the only one that is unidirectional with a relatively constant speed. It’s those conditions that keep you in your evolutionary box, and tend to easily make creationist look ridiculous. But, thinking outside your box, I think it possible that God created everything on a timescale we do not fathom. That's why an answer to questions like this will usually be problematic to creationists who try to think it through in your box, and at best an 'it had to be our way' to evolutionists.

Your fourth sentence in the second quote is a good example of the fallacy of begging the question, since you need to have evidence for your God before you can propose that He did anything in a way that we do not fathom.

Moreover, your whole argument in post 147, that modern humans did not exist at the same time as Homo erectus, depends on your accepting that the geological dates obtained for Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are reliable.