Unsimplifiability, proves Darwin was not intent on developing a working theory...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jonathan Walkerin

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
3,720
2,772
44
Stockholm
✟72,396.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Those things occur, adaptive traits of Polar Bears being a strong example. But Polar Bears can still mate with Grizzles. Evolution is supposed to work one way but in nature that's really don't the case, in a lot of ways it's cyclical.

Of course they occur, but the process does not include divinity in any way we can see. Polar bears do not magically grow gills in a day, or year or century when their habitat melts to the ocean.

Evolution is supposed to work one way but in nature that's really don't the case, in a lot of ways it's cyclical.

Really ? So what is one way it is supposed to work in nature and how is that different from how it actually works ?

What is an example of this cyclical evolution ?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Of course they occur, but the process does not include divinity in any way we can see. Polar bears do not magically grow gills in a day, or year or century when their habitat melts to the ocean.

The doctrine of creation is almost exclusively focused on the creation of life at the point of origin.

Really ? So what is one way it is supposed to work in nature and how is that different from how it actually works ?

What is an example of this cyclical evolution ?

Darwin's finches for one thing. When introduced to the Galapagos the short strong beaks had an advantage and the ones with the long thin beaks perished. Reintroduced to the mainland that advantage flips.
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Walkerin

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
3,720
2,772
44
Stockholm
✟72,396.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
When introduced to the Galapagos the short strong beaks had an advantage and the ones with the long thin beaks perished. Reintroduced to the mainland that advantage flips.

In this case the birds flipped. The process of evolution worked just as it always does. Survival of the fittest to breed in nutshell.

So how is this different from how it should work ?
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Walkerin

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
3,720
2,772
44
Stockholm
✟72,396.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The doctrine of creation is almost exclusively focused on the creation of life at the point of origin.

Clearly this is not case for everyone on these boards though.

In the case of an animal growing longer or more fur because of climate change to colder weather, I'm convinced that The Lord just makes these types of changes happen divinely.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
In this case the birds flipped. The process of evolution worked just as it always does. Survival of the fittest to breed in nutshell.

So how is this different from how it should work ?
It's not evolution, evolution goes one way. Variation can be explained by dominant and recessive genes, swapping out reading frames, genetic drift and a host of other less dramatic changes. Survival of the fittest bases all adaptive evolution and the struggle to survive as members of the population struggle within it's own ranks. Adaptive evolution doesn't work that way, most of it can be explained as molecular mechanisms developing an adaptive trait. The Arctic Cod for example as this brand new and unique gene that produces a gene that works like antifreeze. This was developed not once, not twice, but at least four times producing distinctly different genes and protein products that do the exact same thing. Natural selection by trying to explain everything actually explains nothing. It is an effect without a cause.
 
Upvote 0

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 28, 2017
3,779
2,856
Arizona
✟529,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Clearly this is not case for everyone on these boards though.

tenor.gif
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Walkerin

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
3,720
2,772
44
Stockholm
✟72,396.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It's not evolution, evolution goes one way

Evolution has no goal, it has no road map nor direction it is supposed to go. It literally goes where the circumstances take it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Evolution has no goal, it has no road map nor direction it is supposed to go. It literally goes where the circumstances take it.
God does and so does his creation.
 
Upvote 0

TBDude65

Fossil Finder (TM)
Dec 26, 2016
767
565
Tennessee
✟26,919.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Hello,

So yes, there are standards that have to be kept.

A cohesive theory is one that sets out to complete what was undertaken, not beach halfway - in the context of Evolution, it is evident from the fact that it cannot be simplified, that Darwin was not intent on the theory culminating in something specifically meaningful: his thoughts were gibberish, in principle.

I can simplify the Bible - "it was, it began" - and if that was all that you ever knew about it, those words would still save you from a Hell separated from God - on the other hand it can be expanded into Old and New Testaments, with a fractal like quality, delimiting for how long you should ponder life and to what end. I can even over-simplify the Bible, but for that I receive the punishment associated with such an act, spiritually - if nothing else.

So we have two paths, before us: do we simply add to what was never intended to finish, completely foolishly? Or do we work with the text in which we have faith: regardless of how much is gained or lost in the manner we approached it? It is not necessarily given that these developments are irreversible: the unending can end, the ended can regrow - it is not determined that one steals our freedom or the other one grants it: only that something of some sort must happen, while we have time on Earth, lest the greater portion of what is possible now, be lost.

A working theory, is possible. It takes beginning and ending conditions and a determination not to let one settle without the other, when both are needed. If it can be simplified it be communicated and that can only be a good thing. Should we be trapped, we need to start again; should we be confused, we need to study more carefully. This is the process of engaging meaningfully with something that has been offered to have been understood - unless, pray tell, your understanding is itself to you a ruse? I pray with long suffering that this not be the case, but that your theory become more porous, more able to draw in and establish - where indeed all Christ, the very Creator, comes to a head.

Not that it is wrong to set out to have approached an unreconcilable digmatic, but that to call that digmatic the truth or more like it, is a forgery.

Evolution surmised simply: Everything changes
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Its not I who deny physical reality (science).

And if you want to do so, its peer-review or your views can safely be ignored.
Then ignore them but don't expect me to believe the physical world is all their is to reality, that's atheistic materialism not science.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.