Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Right. Evolution does not "decide" anything, it just evolves. But your statement about changing into something "specific" is interesting. Species are not pre-existing categories into which creatures evolve. They are just what happens as a consequence of adaptation to the environment.
Yet here you are arguing that evolution driven by natural laws is impossible.
I argue that by scripture. God could have, but he didn't. I think I said that didn't I?
He's trying to answer it. I don't know why he is bothering--I tried answering, too, and you blew me off--but maybe you could interact a little rather than expecting it on a plate.
The concept of random variation and natural selection answers what you are asking if you would pay attention and ask follow up questions that were more than rhetorical. Do you really want to know how it works, or just prove to yourself that it can't?
Which came first; the chicken or the egg?
The egg. Egg-laying creatures were ancestors to the chicken.
Preposterous! Yes offspring are different than parents. It's a built in part of creation so we are not all clones.
It's an amazing part of God's design. Look around you. Every tree every stone every grain of sand is unique. The complexity all screams design
It does not scream that all there is just happened by accident from a common ancestor.
A little condescending. If course parents pass DNA to offspring. Reproduction is another amazing process that speaks of the complexity of life and how impossible it is to have happened by chance. Another reason to believe in intelligent design.
Evolution from one thing to another is either chance or design.
Since DNA,,molecules and all the microscopic things that exist do not have brains they cannot make decisions.
They cannot decide that they want to evolve into something they are not already therefore it is chance
It doesn't matter what the bible says, if the facts of reality say otherwise..Like I have said before, God could have decided to create by evolution by setting the laws of nature in place to do so. That too would have been intelligent design. BUT the bible says he didn't.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Regardless of why the mechanism works the way it works, there IS a mechanism that produces this variation in newborns. And that mechanism is mutation.
Next comes natural selection. After all, mutations have the potential to influence fitness. Every newborn has a bunch of mutations. This is not debateable. It's fact. Observable, verifiable fact.
No, "complexity" does not scream anything.
Complexity, by itself, isn't evidence of anything other then complexity. Just observing something to be complex does not, in any way, even only hint at its origins or how the complexity came about. At all.
Nobody, except creationists, says that evolution is "just an accident".
And common ancestry of living things is a genetic fact, by the way.
Evolution from one thing to another is either chance or design.
Since DNA,,molecules and all the microscopic things that exist do not have brains they cannot make decisions. They cannot decide that they want to evolve into something they are not already therefore it is chance.
Only things with intelligence can choose to change into something specific.
Like I have said before, God could have decided to create by evolution by setting the laws of nature in place to do so. That too would have been intelligent design.
Humans are still humans, orangutans are still orangutans spiders are still spiders.
And common ancestry is not a fact. It can't be proven.
The complexity does scream intelligent design because Its impossible for this universe to exist in its complex form to allow life to exist the way it does and continue to perpetuate that life without being designed to do so.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Romans 1:18-21 ESV
http://bible.com/59/rom.1.18-21.ESV
I argue that by scripture. God could have, but he didn't. I think I said that didn't I?
Natural selection is the mantra of the evolutionist. You love to take the idea that natural selection such as a moth changing color to survive somehow equates to everything therefore came from one thing without any design or necessity to do so. Why would a single thing whatever that was need to evolve? What conditions were there at that time that caused the first molecule or whatever to begin to evolve into something else. What was the necessity of evolving into a spider or a bird or a lizard or a monkey. The micro evolution of a single creature such as a rabbit to have a different coat color for survival is built in design. It's based on necessity. Yet you cannot not ever will be able to prove that a single cell will evolve into anything other than it was to begin with. And no amount of experimentation has ever been able to show otherwise.False dichotomy.
Natural selection is a natural (and inevitable) process that is not mere "chance".
Nore do they need to.
It always amazes me that people who clearly don't understand how evolution works, think they are qualified to argue against it.
Again, "natural selection" - have ever even heared about it? it sounds like you haven't.
It doesn't matter what the bible says, if the facts of reality say otherwise..
Humans are still humans, orangutans are still orangutans spiders are still spiders.
And common ancestry is not a fact.
It can't be proven
Its an assumption
The complexity does scream intelligent design because Its impossible for this universe to exist in its complex form to allow life to exist the way it does and continue to perpetuate that life without being designed to do so.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Romans 1:18-21 ESV
http://bible.com/59/rom.1.18-21.ESV
Natural selection is the mantra of the evolutionist. You love to take the idea that natural selection such as a moth changing color to survive somehow equates to everything therefore came from one thing without any design or necessity to do so. Why would a single thing whatever that was need to evolve? What conditions were there at that time that caused the first molecule or whatever to begin to evolve into something else.
What was the necessity of evolving into a spider or a bird or a lizard or a monkey.
The micro evolution of a single creature such as a rabbit to have a different coat color for survival is built in design.
Yet you cannot not ever will be able to prove that a single cell will evolve into anything other than it was to begin with.
There is no proof of any natural selection creating something completely new from something it wasn't already.
Natural selection is the mantra of the evolutionist.
You love to take the idea that natural selection such as a moth changing color to survive somehow equates to everything therefore came from one thing without any design or necessity to do so.
There is no "need". Or at least not that I'm aware of. I see no reason to entertain that option either.Why would a single thing whatever that was need to evolve?
What conditions were there at that time that caused the first molecule or whatever to begin to evolve into something else.
What was the necessity of evolving into a spider or a bird or a lizard or a monkey.
The micro evolution of a single creature such as a rabbit to have a different coat color for survival is built in design.
It's based on necessity.
Yet you cannot not ever will be able to prove that a single cell will evolve into anything other than it was to begin with.
And no amount of experimentation has ever been able to show otherwise.
There is no proof of any natural selection creating something completely new from something it wasn't already.
There is no proof of any natural selection creating something completely new from something it wasn't already.
Because natural selection doesn't make changes like that.
Natural selection works with what is there, making only small changes, things that can happen when only a small part of the DNA molecule is changed. Any large changes will probably be harmful. But very small changes will have a much better chance of being not immediately fatal.
A population of self-replicating life forms.What was the starting point of evolution?
It worked on randomly distributed (think "bell curve") variation exhibited by the individuals in the population. Where that first population came from is not known.What did it work on and where did the organism come from that it began to work on?
All the varied individuals of the population.How many 'choices' did evolution 'select' from?
As random variation.If we have over 50 mutations within us how do they manifest?
They interact with each other.Do they compete with each other?
Some individuals reproduce more successfully than others.How do we know when and if a 'selection' is made?
It would have started with the first replicators. These would be relatively simple chain (polymer) molecules, probably RNA or a related poymer, that could copy themselves. There are several competing hypotheses for how and where they could have originated - for a readable potted history of the search for life's origins, leading to the current best hypotheses, see How Life Began.What was the starting point of evolution?
What did it work on and where did the organism come from that it began to work on?
Once a molecule that could copy itself, however unreliably, had appeared, there would very quickly be many millions of such molecules, using up the organic molecules around them to produce new copies. Copying errors and a tendency to attach additional units would result in a vast number of variations on the theme, some better at copying than others (e.g. faster, or more reliable), some more robust than others, and so-on. Computer simulations suggest that a sort of 'molecular ecosystem' would appear, with one variation tending to become dominant in numbers before being outcompeted by another variant. The selection pressures would vary depending on the environmental conditions and resources available, for example, in hot conditions, the more robust replicators would have an advantage, or in resource-limited conditions, smaller, more efficient replicators would predominate. That would be the earliest evolution - variations of molecules that could copy themselves being selected by the environmental conditions and the influence of other replicators (overcrowding, using up resources, etc).How many 'choices' did evolution 'select' from?
Generally the effects are not significant enough to notice, but if you're unlucky, one might cause a disease like cystic fibrosis, or something less serious, like colour-blindness. We tend to notice the detrimental ones more than the beneficial ones.If we have over 50 mutations within us how do they manifest?
Not sure what you mean - the effects of mutations can be cumulative, so a new mutation in an individual might have an effect that combines with an inherited mutation to produce a noticeable result. but the chances of the 50-odd random mutations each individual has interacting with each other are remote.Do they compete with each other?
An individual selection event might be anything that reduces your chance of passing on your genes to the next generation, (or, conversely, gives you an advantage in that respect); things like early death, producing few or no offspring, producing infertile offspring, and so-on. At the individual level these effects appear fairly random, but at a population level they are more obvious, especially when there are strong selection pressures (food shortages, diseases, etc).How do we know when and if a 'selection' is made?
"A population of self-replicating life forms."
"Where that first population came from is not known."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?