Direction of Evolution

[Speedwell]

Atheistic evolution says so (as opposed to Christian evolution, which to me seems a pretty stupid name. Why are we copying the atheists?). This is why I suggested you get a different name for whatever theory you're suggesting. Evolution means there was no intelligence, purpose, intent, or meaning behind anything. It was all random.

Evolution means no such thing. The theory of evolution makes no statement whatever about purpose, intent or meaning behind anything, one way or the other. No scientific theory does.

Ask the professionals; no atheist will tell you there is any meaning or purpose, intelligence or intent behind evolution.

But the theist will tell you that that there is. And both the theist and the atheist use exactly the same theory

This is why they say the mutations are random, instead of with purpose. If you're suggesting there was meaning and purpose, then you're talking about creation, not evolution.

Wrong. the term "random" as used in in the title of the theory and in scientific discourse generally merely means "unpredictable." It does not mean "without purpose."

Get your priorities sorted.

Get your sources sorted; what you posted here is largely baseless slander.

 

[Jimmy D]

Exactly, which is why, when evolutionists use words like "control" or "process" to describe their theory, they're cheating on the theory. There is no control in evolution; it's all random.

You're not making sense. Why is it "cheating on the theory"?

 

[Endtime Survivors]

The theory of evolution makes no statement whatever about purpose, intent or meaning behind anything, one way or the other.

Sure it does. Evolution very clearly states that there was no purpose, intelligence, or meaning behind either the advent of life, or the activities of life thereafter. That is why we have a distinction between evolution and creation in the first place.

Ask the Atheists. They'll tell you, if you put it to them the right way...

But the theist will tell you that that there is. And both the theist and the atheist use exactly the same theory

No. Christians only support "evolution" because the intellectual, academic society of all things Atheist has managed to browbeat them into submission by using their insecurities against them. Just listen to an Atheist go on and on about all the scientific blah blah blah and all the undertones regarding those who choose not agree with their meaningless theory. It takes a pretty strong integrity not to give in to all that intellectual pressure.

Wrong. the term "random" as used in in the title of the theory and in scientific discourse generally merely means "unpredictable." It does not mean "without purpose."

Nope. Ask any atheist to tell you that evolution involves purpose behind how it operates. If you can manage to stave off all the incredulity at how stupid you must be, you'll eventually back them into a corner and they'll be forced to admit the truth; they see no purpose, intelligence, intent, or meaning behind it all; only random genetic mutations which happen as a result of noting except that they happen...

Get your priorities sorted (haha, maybe that should become my new Christian avenger catch-phrase).

 

[Endtime Survivors]

You're not making sense. Why is it "cheating on the theory"?

Well, I did give an explanation as to why I think that. Why did you think about my explanation?

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, I'm being more basic than that definition. I'm talking about the most fundamental aspect of evolution; its lack of meaning, purpose, or intent. Of course the text books and websites won't put it that way because it sounds so horribly bleak, and yet that is precisely what evolution teaches; there was no designer. There was no intelligence. There was no plan or purpose behind any of it.

Doesn't this apply to all of nature, and not just evolution? Weather has a lack of meaning, purpose, or intent. It rains on the rich as well as the poor, as the old saying goes. The orbits of planets are without meaning, purpose, or intent. The decay of isotopes is without meaning, purpose, or intent.

It would appear that you view all of nature as being bleak.

There is also a rather problematic theological implication if you want to claim that mutations are purposeful, have intent, and are guided by a deity. Children are born with very devastating genetic diseases because of mutations they are born with. For example, children are born with diseases like hemophilia. Their parents don't have the mutation for hemophilia, yet the children do. This means that this mutation happened in the present. If what you say is true, then there is some intelligence (dare I say deity) guiding mutations so that kids are born with blood that doesn't clot very well. That seems even more bleak.

There was a random explosion shooting particles randomly in every direction. These particles randomly bumped into one another by random forces which developed into the planet we live on where more random particles randomly bumped into one another cause life, which then randomly mutated into what we have today.

If you want to say these things are not random, then there must be something which causes them to not be random. What is that something? The laws of the universe? But laws imply purpose and intent.

Evolution has become like that. It's a cold, sterile theory with no meaning or purpose behind it.

The purpose for the theory is the same today as it was when Darwin and Wallace first penned it. The purpose is to explain how species change over time. The purpose of all scientific theories is to explain how nature works. For some of us, figuring out how nature works is very rewarding and provides a very satisfying purpose to life.

Perhaps your problem is that you are looking for purpose and meaning in the wrong places.

 

[Speedwell]

Sure it does. Evolution very clearly states that there was no purpose, intelligence, or meaning behind either the advent of life, or the activities of life thereafter. That is why we have a distinction between evolution and creation in the first place.

If you think evolution "clearly states" any such thing, you will have no trouble coming up with a quote, right?

No. Christians only support "evolution" because the intellectual, academic society of all things Atheist has managed to browbeat them into submission by using their insecurities against them. Just listen to an Atheist go on and on about all the scientific blah blah blah and all the undertones regarding those who choose not agree with their meaningless theory. It takes a pretty strong integrity not to give in to all that intellectual pressure.

So is this about theists versus atheists? Or is it about Christians, other theists and atheists versus certain Christian sects who favor a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of scripture?

Nope. Ask any atheist to tell you that evolution involves purpose behind how it operates. If you can manage to stave off all the incredulity at how stupid you must be, you'll eventually back them into a corner and they'll be forced to admit the truth; they see no purpose, intelligence, intent, or meaning behind it all; only random genetic mutations which happen as a result of noting except that they happen...

Of course that's what they think. They're atheists.

Get your priorities sorted (haha, maybe that should become my new Christian avenger catch-phrase).

I think you ought to learn something real about the theory of evolution and science in general first.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, I did give an explanation as to why I think that. Why did you think about my explanation?

I don't think very much of your explanation to be honest. It seems to be based on your faulty statement that evolution is "all random". Feel free to give us examples of "evolutionists" wrongly using the words "control" and "process" though.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, the point was, how did their ancestors get it in the first place?

That was not your point.

"This is one of the more interesting aspects of evolution; sexual reproduction. At some point, for every species which reproduces through sex, there had to be a mutation which facilitated the change from asexual to sexual."

You said that for every sexual species, each species had to go from being asexual to being sexual. That makes no sense.

There had to be some mutation from asexual to sexual. I've never heard any evolutionist suggest some kind of "in between" phase let alone any evidence for such a thing. Maybe it exists, but I've not heard of it.

Asexual and sexual are not mutually exclusive. A species can reproduce by both means. In fact, even bacteria can be both sexual and asexual. They can make exact copies of themselves through cell division in an asexual manner. They can also exchange DNA with other bacteria through sex pili.

Many fungal species do the same. They have an asexual phase where they grow by cell division, and a sexual stage where they split their genome in half and then combine with other cells that have split their genome in half.

That is the part you miss. Sex can be very simple, and it doesn't have to be used exclusively.

But, if there was no in-between phase between asexual and sexual, then that means at some point two of the same species had to get the same kind of mutation allowing for reproductive organs, which usually involves a series of organs and processes along the way.

All you need is the ability to produce cells with half of a genome, and the ability for those cells to combine with one another. You see this all of the time in aquatic species where they expel gametes into the water and they combine to make a diploid offspring.

Not only the same kind of mutation (i.e. reproductive) but one had to be for male and the other had to be female.

Also false. A single organism can produce both egg and sperm. In fact, we see that very thing in many animals, such as the basal chordates (e.g. sea squirts) that have kept some of the features of our most distant vertebrate ancestors. Earthworms are another example. Each individual produces both egg and sperm.

There are also examples of certain species of fish where individuals can change from one sex to the other during their lifetime.

It seems that you are simply uninformed and ignorant of biology. This isn't a bad thing, and it is curable.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sounds like a lot of organization and purpose behind the way these genomes behave...

And yet you can't provide any evidence that this is the case.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Weather has a lack of meaning, purpose, or intent.

Really, you think a system for delivering billions of gallons of water through the air which keeps the land moisturized has no purpose, meaning, or intent for you?

And if humans tried to reproduce the same effect, they'd fail miserably, despite all our technology and intelligence.

It would appear that you view all of nature as being bleak.

No, that is the evolutionist's point of view; no meaning or purpose behind it all. I'm saying there IS definite intelligence, meaning, and purpose behind it all. Don't get it twisted.

Children are born with very devastating genetic diseases because of mutations they are born with.

Yup, and what is humanity doing about it?

The purpose for the theory is the same today as it was when Darwin and Wallace first penned it.

Yup, exactly. No God, no intelligence, no designer, no purpose, no meaning, no intent etc...

The purpose is to explain how species change over time.

Yup, randomly, with no intelligence, purpose, or meaning behind any of it.

The purpose of all scientific theories is to explain how nature works.

I agree, which means the theory of evolution is one of the worst theories science has ever come up with.

For some of us, figuring out how nature works is very rewarding and provides a very satisfying purpose to life.

And I think that's fantastic. But you won't get anything like that from evolution. The rewarding work you do when you think, ponder, speculate, investigate etc about the complexity of life and the universe all comes from God. How could it come from evolution? There is no intent or purpose behind evolution. What you practice when you reason is a gift from God, not atoms randomly bumping into one another.

Perhaps your problem is that you are looking for purpose and meaning in the wrong places.

No, that is the opposite. I've recognized a lack of meaning and purpose in exactly the right place.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

That was not your point.

Yes, it was.

You said that for every sexual species, each species had to go from being asexual to being sexual. That makes no sense.

It makes sense if you recognize that there are different species. Did one mutation account for all changes from asexual to sexual for all species? haha, be careful, LM, you're digging a hole here...

All you need is the ability to produce cells with half of a genome, and the ability for those cells to combine with one another.

Haha right, that's all you need. I'll just skip down to the hardware store and get me some of that...

 

[Endtime Survivors]

And yet you can't provide any evidence that this is the case.

Err, you're saying I can't prove that "hierarchies" are examples of organization? *eye roll*

 

[Endtime Survivors]

So is this about theists versus atheists? Or is it about Christians, other theists and atheists versus certain Christian sects who favor a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of scripture?

I think it's about being true to what you believe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure it does. Evolution very clearly states that there was no purpose, intelligence, or meaning behind either the advent of life, or the activities of life thereafter. That is why we have a distinction between evolution and creation in the first place.

Your inability to demonstrate any purpose, intelligence, or meaning indicates the same. All you are complaining about is that there is a lack of evidence for those things.

You can believe that there is a purpose or intelligence behind all of nature. That is certainly your prerogative, and a belief held by millions of humans. However, to complain that there isn't any evidence of it in nature seems like a rather hollow complaint.

No. Christians only support "evolution" because the intellectual, academic society of all things Atheist has managed to browbeat them into submission by using their insecurities against them. Just listen to an Atheist go on and on about all the scientific blah blah blah and all the undertones regarding those who choose not agree with their meaningless theory. It takes a pretty strong integrity not to give in to all that intellectual pressure.

One of your fellow Christians put it better than I could:

"If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
https://tulsa.younglife.org/Documents/Francis Collins Article on Faith_Science.pdf

Nope. Ask any atheist to tell you that evolution involves purpose behind how it operates. If you can manage to stave off all the incredulity at how stupid you must be, you'll eventually back them into a corner and they'll be forced to admit the truth; they see no purpose, intelligence, intent, or meaning behind it all; only random genetic mutations which happen as a result of noting except that they happen...

The basic argument between atheists and theists is faith. Atheists want evidence for things they believe in. Theists believe through faith. The one thing that atheists and theists can usually agree on is the things that there is evidence for. Evolution is one of those things. If you want to believe that God is behind the operation of nature even though there isn't any evidence for it, then good for you. Just don't expect atheists to be convinced by a lack of evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Err, you're saying I can't prove that "hierarchies" are examples of organization? *eye roll*

Non-nested hierarchies are also examples of organization. Cars, buildings, paintings, and all other human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

Of all the types of organization that a designer can choose from, a nested hierarchy is just one among billions or even trillions of possible types of organization. There is absolutely no reason that we should expect to see a nested hierarchy if species or kinds were separately created. None.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Non-nested hierarchies are also examples of organization. Cars, buildings, paintings, and all other human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

Of all the types of organization that a designer can choose from, a nested hierarchy is just one among billions or even trillions of possible types of organization. There is absolutely no reason that we should expect to see a nested hierarchy if species or kinds were separately created. None.

Sounds like you've got all the jargon worked out.

 

[Speedwell]

I think it's about being true to what you believe.

OK, I believe that you know your statements about the theory of evolution asserting purposelessness are false. I believe that you are intentionally trying to turn what is just a contradiction between biblical creationism and the theory of evolution into a grand theism versus atheism conflict in order to advance your own rhetorical agenda.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

The one thing that atheists and theists can usually agree on is the things that there is evidence for. Evolution is one of those things.

Nah. Evolution is just a temper tantrum.

If you want to believe that God is behind the operation of nature even though there isn't any evidence for it, then good for you. Just don't expect atheists to be convinced by a lack of evidence.

I expect atheists to have integrity. If there is no intelligence behind your existence, then stop using language to describe it which implies intelligence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really, you think a system for delivering billions of gallons of water through the air which keeps the land moisturized has no purpose, meaning, or intent for you?

Can you show where in the theory of weather that there is purpose, meaning, or intent? If not, my point stands.

I would also assume that you accept many scientific theories such as the Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of Atoms. Can you show me any scientific theory where natural processes show meaning, purpose, or intent? Any at all? If not, your complaint seems to be against all of science, and not merely about evolution.

And if humans tried to reproduce the same effect, they'd fail miserably, despite all our technology and intelligence.

No, that is the evolutionist's point of view; no meaning or purpose behind it all. I'm saying there IS definite intelligence, meaning, and purpose behind it all. Don't get it twisted.

Beliefs aren't scientific theories.

Yup, and what is humanity doing about it?

You missed the point. If mutations are being guided by God, as you suggest, then wouldn't this mean that God is purposefully and intentionally giving these children genetic diseases?

Yup, exactly. No God, no intelligence, no designer, no purpose, no meaning, no intent etc...

And from you, no evidence that there is any of those things in the process of evolution.

What we really want to know is why you think anyone has to derive meaning or purpose in their lives from the process of evolution.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

OK, I believe that you know your statements about the theory of evolution asserting purposelessness are false.

Nope.

I believe that you are intentionally trying to turn what is just a contradiction between biblical creationism and the theory of evolution into a grand theism versus atheism conflict in order to advance your own rhetorical agenda.

No, I like clarity. If people who to pretend there is no intelligence behind their existence, that's okay. But be consistent about it. Stop using language which implies intelligence.