If selection pressure waned and waxed, such that the species started again: what'd you do better?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But we are talking about one nerve, in the brain, right?

The nerve that says "this is possible", is the same nerve that says "this can be repeated"?

How would you recognize a new evolution, if you couldn't recognize an old one?

See? This is what I mean. You're trying to make yourself sound intelligent by asking these sorts of nonsensical questions that make no sense to anyone, and then you wonder why no-one gives you the answers you want.
If you want to learn about evolution, then actually make the effort of look up education material on it.

 

[ruthiesea]

No one “believes” in evolution. It is a valid scientific theory. If you don’t “believe” in evolution it still remains a valid scientific theory with all of the attributes of a valid theory.

Evolution is not a force. It is an explanation of observable phenomena.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm starting to get why I have such a hard time believing "Evolution".

Answer me seriously now, why do you believe this (that anything goes), but you are uncomfortable with it being repeated (as in, apes becoming men then apes again)?

I mean it really looks like you are developing a pathology of duplicity or convenience, I can't tell which?

Maybe tell me this, when did you start to realize that you could put mutation in context, using Evolution? What was your first thought of "I can mutate, survivably"? EDIT: What "context" did you start to give the possibility of mutation?

The whole concept of evolution back tracking is technically physically possible... but requires such a vastly unlikely sequence of events that it can be ignored as possible.

 

[Mr Laurier]

You're just shooting the breeze, as far as I can tell.

All I can hear is "I need the conditions to be absolute" "I need the entire species to try in unison" things which God is capable of, but for which you will not acknowledge Him?

"I need for Evolution to refer to specific set of species, with a specific level of perfection" sounds like "I need to jury-rig something for which there is no evidence, by excluding interference at random"... seriously, how confusing and unpredictable do you need it to be?

Let me ask you something: is Evolution ever going to reach a point, where it venerates the ground on which Darwin walked? The way Hollywood stars get the walk of fame? 'Cause I really don't want to be in a conversation that proves anything goes for someone who finds an exception to the Cross? Jesus' Cross was final, it was for every sin, every sin that was committed in the name of Evolution, every sin that was committed in the name of anything else. There is no way for your readiness to evolve, being above sin and the temptation to sin.

There is no way for something to evolve, to the point that it does not have to struggle with the possibility of sin, does not have to be righteous in a specific way and does not have to face judgment as pertains to the faith behind it. I have tried to understand what Evolution means in terms of righteousness, and all I have been told is that "it has nothing to do with being right", meaning the chastening in the end, will be the harshest possible, to a point. You want that? You honestly want that?

EDIT: I'm serious. Sins committed in the name of Evolution, are worse than sins that are simply "selfish".

Alas, there is/are no sins.
Evolution is a process.
Darwin is a dead mortal who is a footnote in history.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi there,

So yes, simple question:

The point being, you would have hindsight about the Evolutionary process, as applied to your population?

Just looking for your thoughts on this, thanks.

EDIT: In Christianity, we have a concept called "quickening", where if you know what to do and you agree in your spirit with how God would do it, you start to do it faster than you would know how (with God's help) [I'm not sure of the exact verse, but maybe one of my brethren could point it out?]

God handled the remaking of animals into
man and likely the timing was perfect.
Not too fast, not too slow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God handled the remaking of animals into
man and likely the timing was perfect.
Not too fast, not too slow.

Strange, you would think that would leave some sort of evidence. Yet none is to be found.

 

[SkyWriting]

Strange, you would think that would leave some sort of evidence. Yet none is to be found.

You seem to be here. That's one of the two pieces needed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You seem to be here. That's one of the two pieces needed.

No; that's just begging the question.

 

[SkyWriting]

No; that's just begging the question.

What question is that?
The only correct answer for you is the evidence you are seeking. Which is what?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What question is that?

The question of the lack of evidence that "God handled the remaking of animals into man and likely the timing was perfect."

The fact that Subduction Zone is here is not evidence for that.

 

[SkyWriting]

The question of the lack of evidence that "God handled the remaking of animals into man and likely the timing was perfect."

The fact that Subduction Zone is here is not evidence for that.

I see. You are right again, I guess.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I see. You are right again, I guess.

If you want to claim for design, you need to show design. Begging the question isn't evidence of design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to be here. That's one of the two pieces needed.

Sorry, that is not evidence. By any definition. In the sciences to even have evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis. What is your hypothesis and what test could possibly show that your hypothesis is wrong?

 

[SkyWriting]

Sorry, that is not evidence. By any definition. In the sciences to even have evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis. What is your hypothesis and what test could possibly show that your hypothesis is wrong?

Look at earth. God created man.

Look everywhere else - No life by natural means.

List all the natural laws that cause life to occur.

List all the hypothesis that life should occur naturally.

Each one on your list is evidence against.

What if there are none? All are evidence that I am wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look at earth. God created man.

Look everywhere else - No life by natural means.

List all the natural laws that cause life to occur.

List all the hypothesis that life should occur naturally.

Each one on your list is evidence against.

What if there are none? All are evidence that I am wrong.

Look at the trees!
Oh my, that is one of the worst arguments you could have tried to use. Once again we understand how life evolved. We have massive evidence for it. You have no evidence for your beliefs.

And no, none of those are "evidence against". An argument from ignorance is not evidence. It is a logical fallacy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Look at the trees!
Oh my, that is one of the worst arguments you could have tried to use. Once again we understand how life evolved. We have massive evidence for it. You have no evidence for your beliefs.

And no, none of those are "evidence against". An argument from ignorance is not evidence. It is a logical fallacy.

You've not researched what my beliefs are, so they remain unscathed by such logic assaults.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't understand what my beliefs are, so they remain unscathed by your logic assaults.

It does not matter if I understand your beliefs or not. They appear to be rather irrational since you do not seem to have any evidence for them. A person can have all sorts of irrational beliefs that are not "scathed" by logic. They should be. Do you think that the beliefs of cargo cult members are valid because they cannot be scathed by logic? You are in effect claiming that your beliefs are no different than yours.

 

[SkyWriting]

Look at the trees!
Oh my, that is one of the worst arguments you could have tried to use. Once again we understand how life evolved. We have massive evidence for it.

Evidence for it happening but no explanation as to why.

 

[SkyWriting]

If you want to claim for design, you need to show design. Begging the question isn't evidence of design.

I you wish to claim the subduction zone...then....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I you wish to claim the subduction zone...then....

I'm not making any claims. You are though.