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.
Look, -57, why waste time on a mediocre plagiarist such as Menton? Much of his material centers on teh argument that evolution cannot be a completely random process. Of course, evolutionary thinkers never said that it was completely random. But that is not exactly my point. My point is that he feels he is making some sort of original contribution by arguing that where there is complex order, there has to be an ordering mind. All he is doing is presenting a very mediocre job of plagiarizing a major philosophical argument for God that more than one major philosopher has stated far more completely and eloquently than has Mention. If this argument appeals to you, then you might want to read the writings of the famous American philosopher-theologian Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000). He can really make this sing in ways Menton can't even imagine. Also, major philosophers such as Hartshorne are far better in dealing with sticky pints that can be easily introjection by skeptics, all of which Menton fails to address. Suppose matter isn't passive, inert, dead, suppose all of matter has a mind, suppose all entities, in all their aspects consist exclusively of souls, then do we really need a God still? Hartshorne is a panpsychist and can really address that objection or at least provide sufficient argumentation to easily overcome it. What about the fact there is definitely chaos, chance, randomness, and indeterminacy in the universe? Certainly, as Hume argued, that would discredit a designing mind or God, a skeptic may well argue. Again, major philosophers such as Hartshorne have addressed that issue. Science sees no purpose in the universe, so why bother with a God? Again, major philosophers have answered that objection, especially Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947). Isn't order nothing more than a purely human projection onto nature, as there is absolutely no sensory experience of causality, hence absolutely no scientific proof for causality, as again Hume so aptly argued? Again, major philosophers such as Whitehead have provided a solid answer here. Why not save a step? If you accept that God is an organized entity and not in any way created, why not just stop and say scientific laws are just there and were created by nothing? Again, major philosophers such as Whitehead have addressed that one. What about the fact that there are very few arguments you can't wiggle out of if you try hard enough? Who says you can't wiggle out of this proof for God if you try hard enough, and if you accept that, then what? Haven't you got any other arguments for God? Again, major philosophers such as Hartshorne have addressed that objection. See, proofs for the existence of God are a very sticky business that require loads of careful philosophical thought in order to even begin to offer satisfying results. So you need to bring in the biggies here. Hartshorne, for example, has been called one of the most God-intoxicated philosophers of all time, as well as the Einstein of contemporary religious thought. Furthermore, that is nothing incomparable about affirming God and evolution. For example, I have argued that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. I have also pointed out the Christian mystical tradition introduced a similar idea. I have also argued that the reluctance among many to accept evolution is based on a false model of God, the classical or traditional Christian model, which was based essentially on Hellenic philosophy and which wrongly argued that God cannot change. In short, God doesn't change, so neither we or the universe. Evolution, then, is absolutely out of the question. However, as I said, I and many other contemporary theologians have argued that is a false model of God. I can go into details here, if that is what you want. I am just giving the general jist for now. Bottom line: There are plenty of far more solid sources to rely on than Menton.
It's more than the placement of the gene....it's also about effecting a gene in a particular way.....via a random process.
You seem very confused. The random process affects a random gene in a random way. This effect can be deleterious, neutral, or positive for the organism. At no point does the random process have to hit a specific gene in a specific way.
Right. This happens through the process of mutation. This is visible in every generation of every species.There would be the need to have DNA change the information in its code
to allow proteins to fold in specific ways so they can form organelle....
Right. This happens through the process of mutation. This is visible in every generation of every species.
If the mutation doesn't deliver a coherently folded protein, it may deliver a non-functional, broken, or harmful protein... or a beneficial protein in a completely different way. You're still looking at this backwards.
Looking forward or backward doesn't matter. As an analogy, as far as analogies let you go....they're pretty much like a lock and key.
Here's a quick 3 1/2 min video...I don't know if you've seen it before. It shows a small slice of the cell world...and just how sophisticated and complicated it is.
No, it really isn't. :/
Raw argument from incredulity does nothing for you.
There's a little problem with your lizard evolution...You gotta do better.
But Answers in Genesis anatomist David Menton, after reviewing the research, .
How do you know natural selection isn't random? Did someone tell you that?
Why do you start n the middle? With the "inheritability of traits"? Where did they come from?
Irrelevant for two reasons. First, Mr. Menton only argues that the evolution was less than has been portrayed, which, even if true, still proves my point, since even a smaller amount of clear evolution over a few decades provides plenty of change (and undeniable beneficial mutations) when multiplied by a million times over a million years. heck, it would still do so if just mulitplied by 1,000, much less 1,000,000. Secondly,
so citing his argument only shows your own credulity, and doesn't support your point. I find it sadly predictable that you have decided to first post a liar as a reference, and then act surprised (and object) when that's pointed out. http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2007/03/dr-david-menton-is-liar.html
No one told us that - you can see that yourself in the deer example of natural selection that we are talking about, remember?
We've already shown, more than once, that new genetic information is easily formed through duplication and mutation. But you know that, right?
Or are you trying to change the topic from the accumulation of beneficial mutations to the origin of life? If so, start a new thread.
In Christ-
Papias
Papias, you're boring me. Please present real numbers.
Then again you did claim Mr. Menton lies. Good job.
Papias, you're boring me. Please present real numbers.
You are working backwards with the assumption of function. Statistics don't work that way. All hands in poker are equally unlikely, whether they be losing hands or a royal flush. Regardless of the odds, you play the game, and you end up holding cards.It's more than the placement of the gene....it's also about effecting a gene in a particular way.....via a random process.
You do realize that evolutionarily, many organelles actually were once independent organisms, right? Mitochondria even have their own DNA, and are essentially symbiotic bacteria that live in our cells. Not all living things have every organelle either. Obviously, our cells don't have chloroplasts. Bacteria don't have most organelles, which shouldn't be shocking given that the organelles in eukaryotic cells were most likely bacteria consumed by ancient eukaryote ancestors that couldn't be digested, and adapted to living inside their would-be predator.There would be the need to have DNA change the information in its code to allow proteins to fold in specific ways so they can form organelle....
....so, I would say...you're, incorrect
Why do you start n the middle? With the "inheritability of traits"? Where did they come from?
How do you know natural selection isn't random?
Looking forward or backward doesn't matter.
As an analogy, as far as analogies let you go....they're pretty much like a lock and key.
Here's a quick 3 1/2 min video...I don't know if you've seen it before. It shows a small slice of the cell world...and just how sophisticated and complicated it is.
What we need is real numbers.....not made up numbers.
Secondly, even if there is a so-called beneficial mutation....there is a need for a second, third, fourth, fifth and so on...that have the ability to increase the information in the DNA responsible for the morphological change.
Yes, the evo-theory would need multiple organs to evolve at the same time. Basically a feeding frenzy of so-called beneficial mutations.
When you can demonstrate that there is enough so-called beneficial mutations...each one occurring in the proper DNA...through out the evolving animal progeny....get back to me. Otherwise all you have is "opinion" ...unsupported opinion. Coloring book opinion.
It's more than the placement of the gene....it's also about effecting a gene in a particular way.....via a random process.
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?