Faith.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Finally you changed your stance

I did not. And the only explanation I can come up with that explains why you think so, is that you didn't understand much of what has been said.

, from "Local optimal" (your excat explaination is "If the environment stays the same, then so does the filter. After some time, all species "fit" the filter as best they can and as a result it will stay rather stable.") to realizing it is proven in experiments that things do change.

I never said that they will stay exactly the same. I said that everything will stay "rather stable". I also said that after some time species will "fit" the filter as best as they an.
Read that again. After some time.

The experiment I was talking about, where a new metabolism pathway was evolved in one of the populations.... A single mutation did that.

Now we can finally go to the next step.

It seems as we can't though, but okay.

As you can see even mutations that does not give a best fit (or neutral) to current environment will stay,

No, that's not what I said. I didn't say that they WILL stay. I said that they COULD. Most of the time, they will not. This is just sheer probability and reasonable uncertainty.

The "rule" here is not "the best fit WILL be succesfull" or vice versa.
It's rather "the better the fit, the more likely it will be succesfull"
Or "the less fit, the more unlikely it will be succesfull"

There is never a guarantee. Because as I said, things can happen beyond the control of the organisms.

over a long run would you expect to see more and more variations?

I expect to see periods of stasis / relatively low change when the environment remains stable and relatively unchanged.

I expect to see periods of either rapid extinction or accelerated evolution in unstable periods, when the environment changes.

The faster the environment changes, the more extinction we'll see.

That's what I expect.

 

[dcalling]

I did not. And the only explanation I can come up with that explains why you think so, is that you didn't understand much of what has been said.


I never said that they will stay exactly the same. I said that everything will stay "rather stable". I also said that after some time species will "fit" the filter as best as they an.
Read that again. After some time.

The experiment I was talking about, where a new metabolism pathway was evolved in one of the populations.... A single mutation did that.

May not be a single mutation, it can be multiple mutations in some generation, we don't know.

Also don't you think this may already happened in the wild long before it happened in the lab, but just the ability was evolved away and just happened to evolve back in the lab? e.coli does exist in the wild longer than the lab.

It seems as we can't though, but okay.


No, that's not what I said. I didn't say that they WILL stay. I said that they COULD. Most of the time, they will not. This is just sheer probability and reasonable uncertainty.

The "rule" here is not "the best fit WILL be succesfull" or vice versa.
It's rather "the better the fit, the more likely it will be succesfull"
Or "the less fit, the more unlikely it will be succesfull"
....
I expect to see periods of stasis / relatively low change when the environment remains stable and relatively unchanged.

I expect to see periods of either rapid extinction or accelerated evolution in unstable periods, when the environment changes.

The faster the environment changes, the more extinction we'll see.

That's what I expect.

I agree on most what you said, however, do you agree that mutations that are not best fits can also survive? And we should be able to observe those mutations in the lab as well?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

May not be a single mutation, it can be multiple mutations in some generation, we don't know.

Except that we do know.
They have samples of before the new metabolism pathway and samples of after it. They literally identified the mutation that did it.

Also don't you think this may already happened in the wild long before it happened in the lab,

That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the ancestral population wasn't able to digest that substance and afterwards, it was.

Mutation, increased fitness, natural selection, population explosion.

That is what matters. That's evolution, right there.

but just the ability was evolved away and just happened to evolve back in the lab? e.coli does exist in the wild longer than the lab.

Even if it was a reappearance of an old trait (it wasn't), the fact remains...
Previous generations weren't able to metabolise it. New generations were.

I agree on most what you said, however, do you agree that mutations that are not best fits can also survive?

How many times are you going to repeat the same question, while ignoring my answer?

And we should be able to observe those mutations in the lab as well?

The lab is not a good place for such observations, I would think.
Because labs have a tendency of being extremely controlled conditions, where certain things/factors/parameters are completely isolated.

Less fit organisms would be outcompeted faster then you can say "outcompeted".

In any case, you seem desperate. Stop trying to focus on the insignificant pixel and start looking at the bigger picture.

 

[dcalling]

Except that we do know.
They have samples of before the new metabolism pathway and samples of after it. They literally identified the mutation that did it.

They were not able to identify the precise changes or genes involved, unless you have more recent information.

That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the ancestral population wasn't able to digest that substance and afterwards, it was.

Mutation, increased fitness, natural selection, population explosion.

That is what matters. That's evolution, right there.

Remember my position, I don't disagree mutation happens, I question if there are barriers that are too big to overcome in the mutation process.
Even if it was a reappearance of an old trait (it wasn't), the fact remains...
Previous generations weren't able to metabolise it. New generations were.

How many times are you going to repeat the same question, while ignoring my answer?

Your answer seems to contraindicate itself.

The lab is not a good place for such observations, I would think.
Because labs have a tendency of being extremely controlled conditions, where certain things/factors/parameters are completely isolated.

I will agree on that. None of our current lab results shows organism can evolve to anything they can.

Less fit organisms would be outcompeted faster then you can say "outcompeted".

This is the only answer you given on the "less fit issue" that make some sense. In your hypothesis are you suggesting less fit organism will all extinct in exp scale that we will always see a homogeneous group of best fit organism?

In any case, you seem desperate. Stop trying to focus on the insignificant pixel and start looking at the bigger picture.

I am just trying to start from something simple. If we can't figure out how single cells evolve, can we really claim to understand how complex organism evolve? Remember, theory has to be backed by evidences, we have evidences changes of organisms over time (evolution), but not much concrete ones that if certain changes are possible, i.e. from Pakicetus to whales.

 

[zippy2006]

The question is simple. Why do Christians have faith?

Because they have been convinced that God has spoken and that his word is true--something to be firmly held to.

 

[bcbsr]

The question is simple. Why do Christians have faith?

Because it's convincing to us. The propositions, the eyewitness testimony to miracles affirming God has spoken. Read the New Testament, if not the whole Bible for yourself and see if it's convincing to you.

 

[juvenissun]

The question is simple. Why do Christians have faith?

Good question.
The answer is one you do not understand and can not accept: Because God gives them faith.
Otherwise, there is no way to do that.

 

[juvenissun]

If faith is trust in god...wouldn't it be coming from you, and not god? Why would god need trust in himself?

God does not need it. God wants it.

 

[juvenissun]

How does he choose his elect? What happens to those who aren't one of the elect?

When they live on the earth, they are not Christians.

 

[Ana the Ist]

God does not need it. God wants it.

Why? Comparably...what are you to god? He's a being of infinite power, knowledge, ability, etc...you're just a man. You're so far "beneath" him the division between you is incomparable.

For the sake of conversation though, let's run an analogy...

Let's imagine that you created some ants. To the ants, even though they cannot comprehend your existence, you are godlike to them. You are a being capable of far more than they could ever imagine. Would you want their trust? Would you want or need anything from them? Would you care one bit about their prayers or what happens to them in the afterlife? Would you try to commune with them?

I would suggest that the idea is laughable. The division between you is so large it renders communication pointless. What you would want, is to commune with a being which is comparable to yourself...how else could you be understood?

 

[juvenissun]

Why? Comparably...what are you to god? He's a being of infinite power, knowledge, ability, etc...you're just a man. You're so far "beneath" him the division between you is incomparable.

God is all mighty.
But He can not create a free-will being with loyalty.

 

[bling]

Why? Comparably...what are you to god? He's a being of infinite power, knowledge, ability, etc...you're just a man. You're so far "beneath" him the division between you is incomparable.

For the sake of conversation though, let's run an analogy...

Let's imagine that you created some ants. To the ants, even though they cannot comprehend your existence, you are godlike to them. You are a being capable of far more than they could ever imagine. Would you want their trust? Would you want or need anything from them? Would you care one bit about their prayers or what happens to them in the afterlife? Would you try to commune with them?

I would suggest that the idea is laughable. The division between you is so large it renders communication pointless. What you would want, is to commune with a being which is comparable to yourself...how else could you be understood?

What would be “entertaining” for an all knowing being to watch a bunch of ants?


I will try to address you logically, but there is a base we need to establish:

The problem is there is no quick answer.

I will address this “generally” and then you can ask specific questions.

Generally:

Without getting to philosophical: “Something has had to always exist since it is illogical to think something comes from nothing. Now some atheists have tried to get around this by saying nothing is really “something” and there is no such thing as really “nothing”. The bottom line is there has always been something. Now did that something at least include intelligence or was it just mass/energy/time/space? The problem with “excluding” intelligence is there appears to be a huge amount of intelligence that went into the design of this universe and life that makes it virtually impossible to happen by random “luck”. If there is one thing we have learned it is: “the more we know the more we realize we do not know”, so that means an ever increasing complex universe and the more complex it is the more random chances you need to make the right conditions without intelligence and the more likely scenario is there was intelligence involved.







If there is this eternal intelligence it would be at the epitome of the best it could be and not in the process of improvement. It would be the ultimate bad or good but not somewhere in-between. Why be bad when He can be good just as easily? The ultimate “good” would be what is called Godly type Love (to be defined later) and is totally unselfish type Love. Since this God would be able to direct our thinking, why would He have us think of him as being totally bad, when He could make us think bad was good and thus He would be worthy of praise? If God were bad and we praise a “Good God” than we are not praising Him.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.



So God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force in all universes that compels even God to do all He does) and become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).



What keeps the all powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation?



There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)



This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).



An unselfish God would be doing all He can to help willing individuals to make that free will decision to accept His Love. Again, since God will not be forcing these individuals, they have to be willing (it is their choice) and God cannot “make” them willing since that is robotic action. God can only at best make them free will agent (like God is) and capable of make the right decision without the selection being worthy of anything (it is a gift of pure charity).



This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.



Let me just give you an example of How God works to help willing individuals.



All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

If the nonbeliever had knowledge of God's existence that person would not need faith in God's existence, but faith is needed for humility and humility is needed to humbly accept pure charity and the only way to get Godly type Love is through accepting it as pure charity in the form of forgiveness.

That is an introduction to a huge topic.

 

[LostMarbels]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. To me faith is not hope, or wishful thinking, it is knowing the outcome. I know for a fact that Jesus is the Christ, and I will be with him when the time comes. I know the word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst men. There are many things I consider as fact in my walk with Christ, and that, is faith. One of the weird things about faith is trying to explain the metaphysical with the carnal physical realm. That is not easy to do. The biggest problem with breaking it down is the constant requirement of us, the christians, to provide empirical proof God even exists in the first place. Or why He did what He did how He did it. Well, as the definition depicts, that takes personal observation, and study. If an individual has never seen God move in their life, studied his characteristics, nor ever had a relationship with him; it becomes profoundly difficult to explain my faith as not just belief.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. In other words, belief is when someone thinks something is reality, true, when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something. This is not the case concerning faith. I have faith because I know how God will react in certain situations, and what He will or will not do.

Simple example, I believe God could make someone walk on water. I do not however have the faith to attempt it. I myself do not have the factual certainty that I can walk on water. I am a man, and my faith is lacking in certain areas even if I fully understand that God can accomplish it. But onto other areas of my walk my faith is matured, and I can stand in faith knowing as fact how God is going to react.

 

[Ana the Ist]

God is all mighty.
But He can not create a free-will being with loyalty.

Looks like the question went over your head.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What would be “entertaining” for an all knowing being to watch a bunch of ants?

Are you asking me? What makes you think it's entertaining?

I will try to address you logically, but there is a base we need to establish:

The problem is there is no quick answer.

Well I disagree already, there is a quick answer. Such a being would disregard you as you disregard the bacteria on your elbow.

I will address this “generally” and then you can ask specific questions.

Well I've already asked a specific question.

Generally:

Without getting to philosophical: “Something has had to always exist since it is illogical to think something comes from nothing. Now some atheists have tried to get around this by saying nothing is really “something” and there is no such thing as really “nothing”. The bottom line is there has always been something. Now did that something at least include intelligence or was it just mass/energy/time/space? The problem with “excluding” intelligence is there appears to be a huge amount of intelligence that went into the design of this universe and life that makes it virtually impossible to happen by random “luck”. If there is one thing we have learned it is: “the more we know the more we realize we do not know”, so that means an ever increasing complex universe and the more complex it is the more random chances you need to make the right conditions without intelligence and the more likely scenario is there was intelligence involved.

None of this has anything to do with my questions...nothing at all.

If there is this eternal intelligence it would be at the epitome of the best it could be and not in the process of improvement. It would be the ultimate bad or good but not somewhere in-between.

Not that this has anything to do with my questions either...but why do you think this? It's beyond ridiculous.

Why be bad when He can be good just as easily? The ultimate “good” would be what is called Godly type Love (to be defined later) and is totally unselfish type Love.

It seems the existence of Satan would refute this.

Since this God would be able to direct our thinking, why would He have us think of him as being totally bad, when He could make us think bad was good and thus He would be worthy of praise? If God were bad and we praise a “Good God” than we are not praising Him.

Do you believe god sends people to hell?

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.

What makes you think god loves you at all? People create things all the time that they don't love.

So God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force in all universes that compels even God to do all He does) and become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).



What keeps the all powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation?



There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)



This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).



An unselfish God would be doing all He can to help willing individuals to make that free will decision to accept His Love. Again, since God will not be forcing these individuals, they have to be willing (it is their choice) and God cannot “make” them willing since that is robotic action. God can only at best make them free will agent (like God is) and capable of make the right decision without the selection being worthy of anything (it is a gift of pure charity).



This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.



Let me just give you an example of How God works to help willing individuals.



All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

If the nonbeliever had knowledge of God's existence that person would not need faith in God's existence, but faith is needed for humility and humility is needed to humbly accept pure charity and the only way to get Godly type Love is through accepting it as pure charity in the form of forgiveness.

That is an introduction to a huge topic.

I skipped over this last part since you're getting way off course.

 

[zippy2006]

Let's imagine that you created some ants. To the ants, even though they cannot comprehend your existence, you are godlike to them. You are a being capable of far more than they could ever imagine. Would you want their trust? Would you want or need anything from them? Would you care one bit about their prayers or what happens to them in the afterlife? Would you try to commune with them?

I would suggest that the idea is laughable. The division between you is so large it renders communication pointless. What you would want, is to commune with a being which is comparable to yourself...how else could you be understood?

Hence the importance and remarkable nature of the Incarnation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hence the importance and remarkable nature of the Incarnation.

Care to elaborate?

 

[zippy2006]

Care to elaborate?

The post I responded to is probably the most accurate I have ever read from you. A Christian would agree with all of it.

Given what you say it is remarkable enough that God would merely communicate with humans, as he began to do in the Old Testament. How much more astounding that he would become a human in order to raise up humans to new heights? That he would have compassion on us, take on our condition, and redeem our entire existence even to the depths of pain and death? That's what the Incarnation is. That's where Christian joy comes from. We believe that the unthinkable has happened.

1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness
​

And you ask why? Although it probably isn't entirely possible to describe the divine reasoning behind the act, I suppose because God is love. Because he is not afraid to stoop low and fill up the lowest parts of his creation. But we wouldn't know any of that without the Incarnation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The post I responded to is probably the most accurate I have ever read from you. A Christian would agree with all of it.

Given what you say it is remarkable enough that God would merely communicate with humans, as he began to do in the Old Testament. How much more astounding that he would become a human in order to raise up humans to new heights?

Astounding? I'd say it's downright unbelievable...

That he would have compassion on us, take on our condition, and redeem our entire existence even to the depths of pain and death?

Well...some of us anyway, right? After all, those who don't believe aren't redeemed...are they? Or are you one of those who thinks that regardless of faith or acts...we all are brought to communion with him?

That's what the Incarnation is. That's where Christian joy comes from. We believe that the unthinkable has happened.

1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness
​

And you ask why? Although it probably isn't entirely possible to describe the divine reasoning behind the act, I suppose because God is love.

You know...I never really understood that whole saying "god is love". I always consider it to mean "god is very loving" since love is an emotion and emotions aren't really sentient/sovereign entities...let alone entities that create universes and the like.

Because he is not afraid to stoop low and fill up the lowest parts of his creation. But we wouldn't know any of that without the Incarnation.

Well, again I don't want to sound like I'm splitting hairs here, but not the "lowest" parts of his creation...right? I'm fairly certain that you don't think that he appeared as a dog version of himself to go deliver a message of salvation to all dogs everywhere...right? So the vast majority of living things that he created actually live out short, painful, brutal lives that often end suddenly. Where's the love for them?

As for the "filling up" that you mentioned...what exactly did you mean by that? You do believe that god created man...right? So the human condition is a result of his design...and if that's the case it seems like forgiveness is the least he could do to amend the problem.

 

[zippy2006]

Astounding? I'd say it's downright unbelievable...

Sure, unbelievable then.

Well...some of us anyway, right? After all, those who don't believe aren't redeemed...are they? Or are you one of those who thinks that regardless of faith or acts...we all are brought to communion with him?

He died for all, but some reject him.

You know...I never really understood that whole saying "god is love". I always consider it to mean "god is very loving" since love is an emotion and emotions aren't really sentient/sovereign entities...let alone entities that create universes and the like.

Maybe love is more than an emotion. (1 John 4:16)

Well, again I don't want to sound like I'm splitting hairs here, but not the "lowest" parts of his creation...right? I'm fairly certain that you don't think that he appeared as a dog version of himself to go deliver a message of salvation to all dogs everywhere...right?

All of creation is being redeemed. (Romans 8:22)

So the vast majority of living things that he created actually live out short, painful, brutal lives that often end suddenly.

Maybe to a pessimist. I'd say that having life in itself is a great gift, but who knows what the new heavens and the new earth will look like?

As for the "filling up" that you mentioned...what exactly did you mean by that? You do believe that god created man...right? So the human condition is a result of his design...and if that's the case it seems like forgiveness is the least he could do to amend the problem.

A belief central to older Christian traditions is called divinization or theosis. By that is meant a kind of elevation by grace to participate in God's divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). This is one answer to your earlier criticism that real communion only obtains between like beings. Friendship with God means, in the end, being raised up to be like God.

But repentance and forgiveness are always the first steps, for they restore the broken relationship that is at the root of all the other problems.