Evolution

[Freodin]

If you won't believe the Bible, what makes you think you're going to believe what we say?

Our words just get in the way.

THIS is exactly why you are a horrible witness.

 

[Lillen]

I'd said this before, but cannot remeber were: Evolution is pretty unnecessary for the industries. So is big bang. It only replace faith with alternative secular thoughts. Numerical system such as binary code gave us processors to computers, einsteins theories gave us nuclear power. But evolution and big bang are only there to confirm...

 

[Elendur]

I'd said this before, but cannot remeber were: Evolution is pretty unnecessary for the industries. So is big bang. It only replace faith with alternative secular thoughts. Numerical system such as binary code gave us processors to computers, einsteins theories gave us nuclear power. But evolution and big bang are only there to confirm...

Actually evolution has given society some real life uses.

Penicillin, disease resistant crops, varieties of different animals (dogs, cats, horses etc), better understanding on how to fight bacterias etc.
Those are just a few of many.

 

[Naraoia]

LOL I remember my science teacher telling us the story about the mice in like 7th grade!

She said that no matter how many tails were cut off, no mouse was ever born without a tail... this was clearly evidence against evolution!

There are no words.

That was one theory for a while. Obviously it was proven wrong. It was one of Lamarck's ideas that I believe Darwin thought to also be true, but don't quote me on that.

Been a while since I perused Origin, but I'm fairly sure he considered the inheritance of acquired traits possible.

According to Wiki :"Evolution is any change".

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What part of the word "any" don't you understand?
.

According to Wikipedia, "Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations."

Wow, you told me you have a short attention span, but I didn't think it couldn't even last a sentence...

 

[Naraoia]

Well, Darwin knew somewhat about genetics since he was a contemporary of Gregor Mendel.

The story I heard is that Darwin had Mendel's results in an unopened envelope for years. In the end he died completely unaware that some Czech monk had figured out heredity and it was all in his drawer.

I said Lamarkian evolution was wrong, and you asked me to provide documentation otherwise. So what, you want me to provide proof that it's true? I can't, because it isn;t. Lamarkian evolution has been discounted as false for ages.

Shall I play devil's advocate?

CRISPR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wiccan_Child]

According to Wiki :"Evolution is any change".

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What part of the word "any" don't you understand?
.

What part of 'quotemine' don't you understand?

 

[Tiberius]

Hey, AV, you know that thing you got where "If the Bible says it, then that settles it"?

Well, what do you say about this?

3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

 

[Gracchus]

Hey, AV, you know that thing you got where "If the Bible says it, then that settles it"?

Well, what do you say about this?
Ecclesiastes 3:18-20

"3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."

​

Oh! Oh! I know! I know! PLUTO! THALIDOMIDE! CHALLENGER! EMBEDDED AGE!


​

 

[TLK Valentine]

Evolution is nothing more than a Rube Goldberg cartoon.

Anyone else see the irony of the same man claiming that the Bible is chock full of cartoon physics?

Here is a brief description of cartoon physics, from Wikipedia:

Cartoon physics is a jocular system of laws of physics that supersedes the normal laws, used in animation for humorous effect. Normal physical laws are referential (i.e., objective, invariant), but cartoon physics are preferential (i.e., subjective, varying).
​

Using the above definition as a template, I propose the following definition for miracle physics:

Miracle physics is a divine system of laws of physics that supersedes the normal laws, used in science for explanatory effect. Normal physical laws are referential (i.e., objective, invariant), but miracle physics are preferential (i.e., subjective, varying).
​

Why should Bible-believing Christians subordinate miracle physics to normal physics in any case where normal physics would contradict the Bible?

 

[Smidlee]

Nothing more?

Why, I would agree with your description. Evolution is not always efficient.

Which is why I don't believe we are the product of evolution. Our bodies are a lot more efficient than any man-made machines. Evolution (trial and error) does have it uses especially to bacteria yet it's still very limited.

 

[CabVet]

Which is why I don't believe we are the product of evolution. Our bodies are a lot more efficient than any man-made machines. Evolution (trial and error) does have it uses especially to bacteria yet it's still very limited.

Yet a lot of other organisms out there (including bacteria) are more efficient than man, which is supposed to be the ultimate creation... Go figure. The only thing we have that is "better" than everybody else is our brain, that is if it doesn't lead to our destruction.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is why I don't believe we are the product of evolution. Our bodies are a lot more efficient than any man-made machines. Evolution (trial and error) does have it uses especially to bacteria yet it's still very limited.

Why is effeciency a reason to doubt evolution? Engineers use genetic algorithms to produce designs that are more effecient than any intelligently designed system:

Dr. Adrian Thompson has exploited this device, in conjunction with the principles of evolution, to produce a prototype voice-recognition circuit that can distinguish between and respond to spoken commands using only 37 logic gates - a task that would have been considered impossible for any human engineer. He generated random bit strings of 0s and 1s and used them as configurations for the FPGA, selecting the fittest individuals from each generation, reproducing and randomly mutating them, swapping sections of their code and passing them on to another round of selection. His goal was to evolve a device that could at first discriminate between tones of different frequencies (1 and 10 kilohertz), then distinguish between the spoken words "go" and "stop".

This aim was achieved within 3000 generations, but the success was even greater than had been anticipated. The evolved system uses far fewer cells than anything a human engineer could have designed, and it does not even need the most critical component of human-built systems - a clock. How does it work? Thompson has no idea, though he has traced the input signal through a complex arrangement of feedback loops within the evolved circuit. In fact, out of the 37 logic gates the final product uses, five of them are not even connected to the rest of the circuit in any way - yet if their power supply is removed, the circuit stops working. It seems that evolution has exploited some subtle electromagnetic effect of these cells to come up with its solution, yet the exact workings of the complex and intricate evolved structure remain a mystery (Davidson 1997).
Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation

 

[Dave Ellis]

No reason to argue with science. They are convinced they know what they are talking about. Even though there is overwhelming evidence that they do not have a clue. Even they admit they only know three or four percent of all there is to know.

1. What exactly is this evidence?

2. How exactly did they come to the conclusion they know 3-4% of everything, when we have no idea what 100% of everything would be?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well, Darwin knew somewhat about genetics since he was a contemporary of Gregor Mendel. It's sort of strange to me that Mendel's work in genetics helped solidify Darwin's work in the early to mid 1900s. Mendel was a Franciscan priest. Just seems to me an example of how science and faith can coexist.

He didn't base his genetic research off of Franciscan Doctrine, he based it on the Scientific Method. Science and Religion are not compatible.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Which is why I don't believe we are the product of evolution. Our bodies are a lot more efficient than any man-made machines. Evolution (trial and error) does have it uses especially to bacteria yet it's still very limited.

How do you figure our bodies are more efficient than man made machines?

Our bodies do work, however, they're full of vestiges, junk DNA and are vulnerable to all kinds of ailments, injuries and poor "design" in general.

I can think of a hundred ways the body could be improved upon. If we were indeed intelligently designed, whoever designed it did a really poor job.

 

[AECellini]

Which is why I don't believe we are the product of evolution. Our bodies are a lot more efficient than any man-made machines. Evolution (trial and error) does have it uses especially to bacteria yet it's still very limited.

we really aren't that efficient.

 

[RickG]

Which is why I don't believe we are the product of evolution. Our bodies are a lot more efficient than any man-made machines. Evolution (trial and error) does have it uses especially to bacteria yet it's still very limited.

All of that is irrelevant. I suppose you can explain the geologic fossil record throughout geologic history without the occurrence of evolution and why there are no bunny rabbit fossils in Cambrian strata? Well?

 

[Smidlee]

Yet a lot of other organisms out there (including bacteria) are more efficient than man, which is supposed to be the ultimate creation... Go figure. The only thing we have that is "better" than everybody else is our brain, that is if it doesn't lead to our destruction.

Ultimate creation? Man seems to do a good job of screwing up nature. The scriptures doesn't support man as the ultimate creation but a ultimate failure. God plan is to take a total failure and make a it a huge success.

we really aren't that efficient.

If you mean "we" as our inventions then I agree. Man's machines wastes a lot of energy. We also fill up landfills with our trash.

 

[Jamin4422]

How exactly did they come to the conclusion they know 3-4% of everything, when we have no idea what 100% of everything would be?

According to NASA:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe"[/FONT]

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

 

[Orogeny]

That doesn't remotely answer the question. It's just a collection of numbers about the content of the universe.