I give up: I'd rather go backwards, than forwards (in Evolution)

[Jok]

The problem is, you are not giving me the incentive, to adopt your point of view?

Offered to look at myself as though a monkey, is not an incentive??

When Creationists offer you to see it from their view, it is offered that your sins be forgiven (and your guilt be remitted)???

Your future spiritual body could be nothing at all like a monkey or man whatsoever. Physical material isn’t really important, “Made in the image of God” has meaning that is distinct from physical structure. The Hebrew is close to “God imager” which means that your life is supposed to reflect the image of what God is like (through how you live your life). You reflect the image of God to people around you (like a mirror). The capacity to do that isn’t even available to monkeys. Because it’s a trait that is related to both being self aware, and to your character, it is not a biology thing.

 

[Gottservant]

You want to make me chattel, that's what bothers me.

If I said "I am only ever going to evolve", I would be a liar like you (Jesus used the same word, of false jews).

But now I say "what little evolution I have, is up to God" and you hate me, because I am not your population? Or you don't think I am??

 

[Gottservant]

If you give your Evolution up, God gives you abundantly more.

There is absolutely no incentive, to keep Evolution - at least as anything more than a ruse.

It's not wrong to harp on about a ruse, if you are using to balance an appetite, that would otherwise become destructive.

 

[driewerf]

You are a human. You are born human and will die human.
It has been said very often to you (and to others); individuals don't evolve. Populations do evolve, but not individuals.

But populations are made up of individuals.

You mean "populations don't necessaily say they are individuals, therefore if their individuality is invoked, I will ignore it"?

Textbook disingenuity, and beside the point, if we all concur that Evolutionists call us monkeys and we still object as a population??

No, populations evolve over different generations.
Let us suppose a population of 3 organisms, each carrying a slightly different version of a gene G. So organism 1 carries G1, organism 2 carries G2, organism 3 carries G3. (And assuming asexual reproduction, for simplicity)
At this moment the population is made up of 33% G1, 33% G2, 33% G3.
Organism 1 dies without offspring, organism 2 has 2 offsprings (and dies) and organism 3 has 3 offsprings (and dies).
So the genetic frequency en the next generation is; G1 0%, G2 40%, G3 60%. These frequencies have changed and G1 is not in the gene pool anymore. The population has evolved but not the individual organisms.
So let us assume a third generation; the two G2-carrieers each have 1 offspring (and die), two G3-carriers have each 2 offsprings, but of these four have a mutation, and carrie now a new variation G4. So in the third generation you have 2 G2-genes (33)%, 3 G3-genes (51%) and 1 G4 gene (17%).
Again, the poulation has evolved, because the frequency in genes has changed over the different generations, but the individual organisms have not evolved during their life time.

 

[Gottservant]

Simplified Evolution, is simply this: that quantum entanglements, fashioned life in primordial mud and as many as identified themselves as a particular creature developed instinct that helped them flourish - which in God was made complete, paying it forward as it were, that death not be overwhelming. The paying it forward, in principle being an Evolution of one difference, which could be repeatedly added to (the more syncopated, in the paying, the more effective the strength). Thus repeating the Creation, flourishing of the more reflourished became the norm for Creation, as was understood to be relative, to the danger of staying that way, while pursued - by predators foregoing the height of the flourishing, because they did not see the rule of man, as from God.

Why part of Creation did not see the rule of man, as from God,, is a question of the History of Sin and does not need to be treated here - suffice it to say, that as we will deal with in our current time, not every son of man, was as trustworthy as Christ.

The point being that History itself, is only meant as a rough guide, to that which we know God wants of us, in the same strength that He loved us with, but to begin with, that the greater praise be added to Him, even though He did not specifically sow for it. In this we know that God loved us, that we were able to stand without sin, before the Son of Man.

The surprise then, is that God readies us for all works, even those we do not know how to undertake, that we are able to describe our history as is convenient to us, given what we are going to do, for His Kingdom's sake - there is a History more convenient than Evolution: the History of Man, and we do well to heed it, because it frees us from sin, when otherwise, we would not know our way. Our way has to be unique to us, or we do not prosper.

Our way has to be unique to us, or we do not prosper.

 

[Gottservant]

No, populations evolve over different generations.
Let us suppose a population of 3 organisms, each carrying a slightly different version of a gene G. So organism 1 carries G1, organism 2 carries G2, organism 3 carries G3. (And assuming asexual reproduction, for simplicity)
At this moment the population is made up of 33% G1, 33% G2, 33% G3.
Organism 1 dies without offspring, organism 2 has 2 offsprings (and dies) and organism 3 has 3 offsprings (and dies).
So the genetic frequency en the next generation is; G1 0%, G2 40%, G3 60%. These frequencies have changed and G1 is not in the gene pool anymore. The population has evolved but not the individual organisms.
So let us assume a third generation; the two G2-carrieers each have 1 offspring (and die), two G3-carriers have each 2 offsprings, but of these four have a mutation, and carrie now a new variation G4. So in the third generation you have 2 G2-genes (33)%, 3 G3-genes (51%) and 1 G4 gene (17%).
Again, the poulation has evolved, because the frequency in genes has changed over the different generations, but the individual organisms have not evolved during their life time.

Yes but assuming G2, G3 and G4 see G1 reaching zero, without help, by the third generation, G2 is able to adopt an adaptation that reverts to G1 with some of its offspring and not with others, G3 and G4 are able to mate with the reverted G1 and G1 will be 33% by the fourth generation.

So it is a question of foresight, not terminality - by which you confuse yourself, that the absence is the end.

If you were committed to adopting the greatest strength you could, for the human race, you would focus on adding to the gene pool, that which is most strategically an honouring of the difference the human race makes, not the similitude.

Not judging by the similitude, strengthens the spirit, not just the testimony.

 

[driewerf]

Yes but assuming G2, G3 and G4 see G1 reaching zero, without help, by the third generation, G2 is able to adopt an adaptation that reverts to G1 with some of its offspring and not with others, G3 and G4 are able to mate with the reverted G1 and G1 will be 33% by the fourth generation.

So it is a question of foresight, not terminality - by which you confuse yourself, that the absence is the end.

If you were committed to adopting the greatest strength you could, for the human race, you would focus on adding to the gene pool, that which is most strategically an honouring of the difference the human race makes, not the similitude.

Not judging by the similitude, strengthens the spirit, not just the testimony.

Your word salad apart, do you understand -- note understand, not necessarily accept -- that populations evolve, but individuals don't?

 

[Gottservant]

It follows, that being able to tell when an individual's likeness is going to die, is an adaptation worth having, regardless of what else you might have to sacrifice.

The pitfall is that only ever having a race of throwbacks (throwbacks to previous generations), is that the genome becomes inflexible - if the genome is inflexible, the throwbacks threaten the survival of the species, from the inside.

Lesser variation, then, turns out to be the greatest strength - since throwbacks are still able to adapt what is new, albeit in slighter measure.

 

[driewerf]

It follows, that being able to tell when an individual's likeness is going to die, is an adaptation worth having, regardless of what else you might have to sacrifice.

The pitfall is that only ever having a race of throwbacks (throwbacks to previous generations), is that the genome becomes inflexible - if the genome is inflexible, the throwbacks threaten the survival of the species, from the inside.

Lesser variation, then, turns out to be the greatest strength - since throwbacks are still able to adapt what is new, albeit in slighter measure.

Do you understand -- note understand, not necessarily accept -- the phrase "populations evolve, but individuals don't"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Simplified Evolution, is simply this:

No, Gottservant, that isn't evolution. That's what you think evolution is but it isn't.

Seriously, I ask this question every time one of your threads pop up: why do you not want to learn about what the theory of evolution actually says and what evolution actually is?
And are you taking your medicine on the regular?

 

[Gottservant]

Do you understand -- note understand, not necessarily accept -- the phrase "populations evolve, but individuals don't"?

Do you accept, that individuals become populations? And that populations become strong individuals?

 

[Tom 1]

Hi there,

So I don't know whether to make this long or short, I just want to say that whatever Evolution is, I am not going to chase it. I just don't want to. I would rather be backwards and have faith; than go forwards and "evolve". It's not that I am not capable of intellectual denial of my desire to have faith, its just that "faith" to me, is everything: I cannot simply give up faith, for something that is poorly explained as "an imaginary past, with self-contradictory roots). I have tried, believe me I have tried.

You say "just let a mutation, dictate what you adapt" that to me, makes no sense at all - it is a deception of half measures "you won't loose your stand, you will just begin not to make one" when that is the very thing that God asks us to do: make a stand. That's what it says in the gospels "be able to stand". There is comfort in that, actually, because I realize that fundamentally, no one who believes in Evolution, is able to make a stand themselves - I am not in competition with people, who excel at understanding the word; I am at rest on the foundation that I have understood what Jesus said, that what He said will stand, within me, even if I pass over, to the other side.

So thanks for all the arguments, all the cheap shots - like that I don't understand something that is basically an unconcealed paradox - all the jokes that my attempts to understand Evolution have destroyed my sense of reasoning: I can cope with all that. I can cope with it because my Evolution is better than anything you could force on me, it is a failed Evolution, one that will never be forwards, until that time, when I strengthen it again in Heaven and do not have to come back, to explain myself, and why my Evolution is different to everyone else's. Not that I have tried to leave you with no explanation, but that the only answer to being able to continue to serve the Lord, is to do without the "progress" that Evolution offers (and nothing else, that it might be said Evolution fixed the problem).

I am the Lion, that doesn't want it's teeth; I am the giraffe, that hangs its head in thirst; I am the monkey, that is dissatisfied with more bananas. I am all these things because I cannot be anything other than what I am: a human being, who no longer functions in the realm of reason, because Evolution has called it into doubt. All of nature is with me, in rejection of Evolution, because it cannot follow it in strength, that the Lord may bless. Jesus Himself, hangs His Head in shame, because the Devil is naked and trumpets Evolution in every direction, without any sense, in how it might take an honourable stance on the life of its constituent believers.

It just gets easier from here: the more backward I stay, the less I have to think about Evolution; the less I have to think about Evolution, the more confident I will become, because I don't have to question it; the more confident I become, the more quiet I will be able to stay, having to use the concept of Evolution less, reducing my ambiguity, increasing the chance that I will just do what is normal for something God has created, as He has created me. In the end it will be unmistakeable, I will have made the backward backward, and my focus, the predator coming for my sense, to make me looseningly witless - that I may resist him, and still make the sense needed, to be at peace with God.

It is not too late, to be backwards with me; to defend nature, from becoming a lawless mess.

What’s the story here? Do you mean you don’t like it if things are inherently changeable as opposed to being fixed and static?

 

[Gottservant]

Do you understand -- note understand, not necessarily accept -- the phrase "populations evolve, but individuals don't"?

I think the problem here is that you are claiming populations know something that individuals do not.

If Evolution cannot be applied by the individual, it cannot be a prerogative.

I have faith. If I believe that faith is important, I treat it as a prerogative - that means I try to treat it consistently, from one instance of believing it, to the next.

If Evolution is not a prerogative, you can generalise it all you like, but it will not ultimately bear any fruit.

 

[Gottservant]

What’s the story here? Do you mean you don’t like it if things are inherently changeable as opposed to being fixed and static?

I have identified, that throwbacks and innovation are a different phenomenon, than Evolution.

Evolution, requires capitulation to taller and taller orders - whereas throwing back and innovating can appear with a commitment of "one".

Wanting to make Evolution something great, then, is a furphy - whereas lots of little Evolutions confirm what has already become instinct.

This is phenomenologically hard.

In future, don't bother communicating Evolution to other individuals, that can't evolve; don't bother keeping a history of Evolution that never changes, without testing not changing on something that believes in Evolution; don't bother adapting to something better than Evolution, when you make everything that evolves, more like a difference that doesn't matter.

 

[Tom 1]

I have identified, that throwbacks and innovation are a different phenomenon, than Evolution.

Evolution, requires capitulation to taller and taller orders - whereas throwing back and innovating can appear with a commitment of "one".

Wanting to make Evolution something great, then, is a furphy - whereas lots of little Evolutions confirm what has already become instinct.

This is phenomenologically hard.

In future, don't bother communicating Evolution to other individuals, that can't evolve; don't bother keeping a history of Evolution that never changes, without testing not changing on something that believes in Evolution; don't bother adapting to something better than Evolution, when you make everything that evolves, more like a difference that doesn't matter.

Are you talking about evolution in thought and understanding about some issue, or evolution as in ToE?

 

[Laurence Niles]

Can you please detail your understanding of evolution?

Evolution is purported to be change in allele frequency over time. However the question is was there enough time time for all the changes to have occurred?

A Christian who holds the Bible as true would not accept deep time as it flys in the face of Creation by Him.

If deep time is not true then the Theory of Evolution is not true. That is to say the gradual change in allele frequency cannot be the case.

This leaves the fact of evolution. Things do change over time- but not quick enough to fit within a Biblical time frame. So to my mind the scientists should be looking for a theory of the diversity of life on Earth that would work within a Biblical time frame.

I don’t expect scientists to understand how He did it but if the truly do have a spirit of inquiry they could explore how with greater vigour.

YIC

 

[Speedwell]

Evolution is purported to be change in allele frequency over time. However the question is was there enough time time for all the changes to have occurred?

A Christian who holds the Bible as true would not accept deep time as it flys in the face of Creation by Him.

If deep time is not true then the Theory of Evolution is not true. That is to say the gradual change in allele frequency cannot be the case.

This leaves the fact of evolution. Things do change over time- but not quick enough to fit within a Biblical time frame. So to my mind the scientists should be looking for a theory of the diversity of life on Earth that would work within a Biblical time frame.

I don’t expect scientists to understand how He did it but if the truly do have a spirit of inquiry they could explore how with greater vigour.

YIC

That's just it. The "biblical" time frame has been off the table for 200 years. There is absolutely no evidence for it.

 

[driewerf]

Evolution is purported to be change in allele frequency over time. However the question is was there enough time time for all the changes to have occurred?

A Christian who holds the Bible as true would not accept deep time as it flys in the face of Creation by Him.

If deep time is not true then the Theory of Evolution is not true. That is to say the gradual change in allele frequency cannot be the case.

This leaves the fact of evolution. Things do change over time- but not quick enough to fit within a Biblical time frame. So to my mind the scientists should be looking for a theory of the diversity of life on Earth that would work within a Biblical time frame.

I don’t expect scientists to understand how He did it but if the truly do have a spirit of inquiry they could explore how with greater vigour.

YIC

Why should the scientists not simply look at the evidence? Investigate the physical world and make their conclusions based on the gathered evidence?

 

[Laurence Niles]

That's just it. The "biblical" time frame has been off the table for 200 years. There is absolutely no evidence for it.

I actually do agree with you. There is no evidence for a short time frame. But does an absence of evidence mean evidence of absence (sorry, I know that’s a facile response)?

What am I really saying?

Hebrew 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I have faith that we have ToE at least somewhat wrong. Wishful thinking? Perhaps, possibly, definitely?

But belief in Him has it’s very foundation in Hope.

YIC

 

[klutedavid]

That would make a thought provoking T shirt.

It's also plainly incorrect. Monkeys never tire of bananas because they taste great.

Believe me, I know what I am talking about.