I am thinking of presenting a choice to Evolutionists - would you defer?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So basically, I have never seen Evolution work - that is: working in a 'working' context (as you might imagine was a specific progression).

I am not saying I can't imagine it working, just that I have never seen Evolution and my imagination agree (on something).

Jesus drew in the sand, that may be wiser: I was thinking of presenting a choice, that is: what job would Evolutionists suggest was "Evolutionarily appropriate" (if that even is a thing) for a believer like myself.

-

The reason I am taking my time with this is, I can't present myself as a stereotypical believer and not have the agreement - at least in principle - with other believers -- besides which I may be completely missing the boat, as to what is the best way to proceed, teasing out one potential job from another (the point being in principle: not to have either side avoiding work - of which the Lord would approve).

So that's it: would you defer to the Lord longer, or should I hit the Evolutionists up with this choice?

 

[planet_joe]

One might counter that you have seen it in a working context, just that it was too gradual and slow for you to recognize it.

 

[Strathos]

Welcome back, buddy! I missed you

 

[Monna]

I guess a little depends on what is meant by evolution and what you would accept as evidence.

All evolution must occur at micro level - in cells, in dna, etc. before change is seen at macro level. So are you looking in the right place?

 

[Monna]

So basically, I have never seen Evolution work - that is: working in a 'working' context (as you might imagine was a specific progression).

Would you consider disease-causing bacteria and viruses becoming resistant to medicines as evolving? They are responding to their environment and those that survive the medicines and pass on their resistance are doing what evolutionists describe as a process of "natural selection." This is happening today, and anti-bacterial medicine resistant bacteria are becoming a MAJOR problem globally. For the people getting these bacteria and the health staff trying to deal with it, it is definitely a "working context." But I have heard people claim that this is not evolution. They do not tell me what it is, though, other than medicine resistance. Is this what you call a "specific progression?" What do you think?

 

[Gottservant]

One might counter that you have seen it in a working context, just that it was too gradual and slow for you to recognize it.

I don't see the caterpillar arguing with the butterfly.

 

[Gottservant]

I guess a little depends on what is meant by evolution and what you would accept as evidence.

All evolution must occur at micro level - in cells, in dna, etc. before change is seen at macro level. So are you looking in the right place?

I think the thing is you see the caterpillar make the cocoon, you don't see the caterpillar paint the cocoon in butterflies.

It does what it does by design, not trial and error.

The more you do by trial and error, the less you can hope to eventuate at (overall).

 

[Gottservant]

Would you consider disease-causing bacteria and viruses becoming resistant to medicines as evolving? They are responding to their environment and those that survive the medicines and pass on their resistance are doing what evolutionists describe as a process of "natural selection." This is happening today, and anti-bacterial medicine resistant bacteria are becoming a MAJOR problem globally. For the people getting these bacteria and the health staff trying to deal with it, it is definitely a "working context." But I have heard people claim that this is not evolution. They do not tell me what it is, though, other than medicine resistance. Is this what you call a "specific progression?" What do you think?

The thing is that some changes have a "context", one that rests on that context having its own advantages - whereas some changes reappropriate a context, distorting the familiarity of changes made in that renewed context.

At the point that you are reengineer a context that has certain advantages but not enough to survive, you are better off sticking with the original context.

Like if mankind dies out, man's pets would do better to just go back to being feral: but that does not mean the animals are "evolving" "'feralness'" (they are just transitioning back to a more original design, what ever you call that).

 

[Monna]

The thing is that some changes have a "context",

All change has a context. There cannot be change without context.

At the point that you are reengineer a context that has certain advantages but not enough to survive, you are better off sticking with the original context.

Am not quite sure what you mean here. In the evolution theory biological change is due to some "pressure" or external change. For example, prey animals develop physiological changes that help them outwit the pedator, while the pedator in turn must develop physiological changes that lead to more success in hunting prey.

In my example, it is not the bacteria that has changed its context. The preyed animal (humans) have introduced a change in the bloodstream or immune system that attacks certain bio-chemical features of the bacteria and kill it. Some bacteria have somehow been able to respond to this by internal changes rendering the humanly induced anti-bacterials ineffective. The bacteria has responded to a change in context. It is humans who have deliberately and consciously looked for weakness within the makeup of the bacteria and engineered a temporary change in the bacteria's environment (in the human bloodstream). These changes in the blood stream may be very temporary, some others have stimulated a long term response mechanism (eg through vaccines) - but even these are not passed on to our children. The changes taking place in the bacteria however do induce changes that continue over "generations" (if you can talk of generations of bacteria).

There are a few animals that seem to deliberately alter their natural environmental context at least locally, and some that do it probably unwittingly. But humankind has very consciously and deliberated altered her natural context, especially recently, to such an extent and on such a scale that it is taking on features that threaten the species in its current form and nature.

 

[Gottservant]

Am not quite sure what you mean here. In the evolution theory biological change is due to some "pressure" or external change. For example, prey animals develop physiological changes that help them outwit the pedator, while the pedator in turn must develop physiological changes that lead to more success in hunting prey.

What I mean is, it is possible for selection pressure to be such that you revert to your original type or kind. This does not mean you are lacking evolutionary attributes that you would have had if you had evolved that way from the start. You have evolutionary attributes because you were you by design, from the outset.

The more you are what you were, the less Evolution has any meaning.

There are a few animals that seem to deliberately alter their natural environmental context at least locally, and some that do it probably unwittingly. But humankind has very consciously and deliberated altered her natural context, especially recently, to such an extent and on such a scale that it is taking on features that threaten the species in its current form and nature.

I appreciate your example of bacteria and humankind, but what you are not doing is pushing the example to the extreme (being in principle "the beginning") - if you did that, you would reveal that Creation is something by design because it - to God- has always had that design or purpose: its design is accessible in principle throughout the life of the creature - short or long.

 

[Monna]

You have evolutionary attributes because you were you by design, from the outset.

Do you mean that creatures evolve by design? That the original bacteria or whatever was designed to be able to change/evolve in response to pressures and changes around it?

 

[Gottservant]

Do you mean that creatures evolve by design? That the original bacteria or whatever was designed to be able to change/evolve in response to pressures and changes around it?

Yes, in the sense that variations to the original design are part of the subtext of the species, at that point.

So a koala, will always have four limbs and a head, but a drastic shortage of gum leaves might lead to small koalas that still have four limbs and a head (but don't need to eat as much).

The point is that the variations are a subtext, not able to blend and merge with other types of species - because the lateral difference of subtypes to an original type is given by the inherent fore-evolution of one type above all: as God does not recognize any differently, if you will.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Hi there,

So basically, I have never seen Evolution work - that is: working in a 'working' context (as you might imagine was a specific progression).

This is easily solved. Visit any good Natural History museum.

 

[Gottservant]

This is easily solved. Visit any good Natural History museum.

This is disingenuous.

No evolutionary step could not in the same breath simply be God telling an organism to reveal a difference that was predesigned.

The point is, if you truly evolved, you would have a genetic stamp that united or differentiated future organisms on the path to 'genetic' freedom.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

This is disingenuous.

I was not disingenuous. Go to a good Natural History museum and you will see examples of evolution in action. This is what you said you had not seen. Now you know where to go to see it.

No evolutionary step could not in the same breath simply be God telling an organism to reveal a difference that was predesigned.

The point is, if you truly evolved, you would have a genetic stamp that united or differentiated future organisms on the path to 'genetic' freedom.

It appears you do not understand the Theory of Evolution. It says nothing about "a path to genetic freedom." And I do not understand what you mean by that entire sentence. Could you please put it into more understandable language? Thank you.

 

[Gottservant]

I was not disingenuous. Go to a good Natural History museum and you will see examples of evolution in action. This is what you said you had not seen. Now you know where to go to see it.


It appears you do not understand the Theory of Evolution. It says nothing about "a path to genetic freedom." And I do not understand what you mean by that entire sentence. Could you please put it into more understandable language? Thank you.

I will reply to this in a week - I don't want to reply while I am hot under the collar.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

I will reply to this in a week - I don't want to reply while I am hot under the collar.

I hope my post did not make you feel this way. I do not think I said anything hurtful.

 

[Gottservant]

I hope my post did not make you feel this way. I do not think I said anything hurtful.

No its all right, you just came across as very presumptuous - as though I had not reasoned meaningfully as to whether I should have evolved.

The point is, the museum shows you kindred subtypes of a species - that's all.

There is no mutation that makes a caterpillar, a mouse (even if he very much intends for his cocoon to have that effect).

-

The point of the choice presented to Evolutionists, is that I don't think words are enough at this stage: I think works that affirm or deny Evolution is in progress is what is needed.

 

[compassion 4 humanity]

Hi there,

So basically, I have never seen Evolution work - that is: working in a 'working' context (as you might imagine was a specific progression).

I am not saying I can't imagine it working, just that I have never seen Evolution and my imagination agree (on something).

Jesus drew in the sand, that may be wiser: I was thinking of presenting a choice, that is: what job would Evolutionists suggest was "Evolutionarily appropriate" (if that even is a thing) for a believer like myself.

-

The reason I am taking my time with this is, I can't present myself as a stereotypical believer and not have the agreement - at least in principle - with other believers -- besides which I may be completely missing the boat, as to what is the best way to proceed, teasing out one potential job from another (the point being in principle: not to have either side avoiding work - of which the Lord would approve).

So that's it: would you defer to the Lord longer, or should I hit the Evolutionists up with this choice?

Speciation is a process which takes millions of years to occur. It took aeons for dinosaurs to evolve into birds, so of course no human could have witnessed it.

 

[Gottservant]

Speciation is a process which takes millions of years to occur. It took aeons for dinosaurs to evolve into birds, so of course no human could have witnessed it.

I will get back to you in a week; I don't want you to think I am just replying for the sake of it.