Yes.Hi there,
So this is quite an obscure question, really, but there is something really disturbing about 'Evolution' as a theory. Actually there are a number of things that are disturbing, but the picture that has developed for me, has started to point in one particular direction: that Evolution itself is untested by its own standard. That standard, is the standard of appearance. To be specific, Evolution - if it were removed from living memory - would be thought to reappear, exactly the same, every single time it was forgotten. Why? Because the arbitrary abstract rules of Evolution, are that knowledge of Evolution is "science" and that "science" is singularly interpreted no matter the object, as the most universally accurate description, of its function.
But how can this be? If Evolution is true, it will be different every time it reappears, on the basis of mutations, or the same, on the basis of selection pressures! Do you see the problem, it is not possible to backwards engineer the same theory, on the basis of evidence, which it is duplicitous about. What we have discovered, is the Telephone Game - the game where people try to communicate the truth they have heard to someone else, necessarily altering it along the way. People don't communicate more (in the Telephone Game), the more they know about Evolution, they are just as bad as everybody else. They have tested this. For Evolution to mean anything, it has to raise the bar of adaptability - how it does that while old memories of spurious conjectures about Man coming from subordinate species are in place, how would you know? And how long would improving Evolution with "Evolution" last, we should also be interested in?
The short of it, is simply this: Evolution is derivative of the observation that species differ, on the basis of alternatives that are unique to their genome - the more it interferes, without correction, the less sense its adaptations make. Like a chameleon that keeps its old disguise, in a new environment or a spider that tries to make its web on drugs, Evolution keeps us from interpreting the truest path, until we start to bring that interpretation around to the real limits and precursors of the design we want to keep, not discard. While Evolution must be in play, for Design to work, Design does not need to hand over the reigns to something that doesn't answer on terms it begins in - this is disingenuous.
No, Evolution needs to exercise a Dead Sea Scrolls test - will it reappear, if we forget about it, or alternatively "what can we do about Evolution now, to speed up the recognition of the things that drive it?" If understanding Evolution is "quickened" that is a massive selection pressure advantage, one that might make Evolution interperable to the layman and give him the psychological sanction to ensure that he is indeed passing on his best, to the next generation - in all those things that Evolution currently just calls "expedient"? The Scriptures have passed the Dead Sea Scrolls test, everything revealed was found to confirm what was already trusted - over and over again! This test was not carried out in spite of "Evolution", it was objectively in favour of the given compilation of the Bible.
So, a choice is needed. Is it thought that Evolution as it stands now, is based on the veracity of a response to mutation, or is it as it stands now, founded on a response to selection pressure? And how would this change, if the test were done again? Do you suppose that it would cease to be new? Or do you suppose it would be more effective if it was fragmented? Or should it have been a choice between initial and belated Evolution, to begin with? And we will discover this divided interpretation has strength, the more? What is the routine exercise of fitness that is necessary, to keep Evolution alive, if it turns out that culturally there is not enough truth in it, for people to believe consistently from Age to Age? The Words of Jesus already pass that test, they are so worded that no meaning is lost, if the interpretation is of the letter - the Telephone Game does not diminish their veracity. Does Evolution desire this? If so, how is it going to get it?
I trust you will think about a small part of this and steer me towards an Evolution, the interpretation of which, you are confident.
A bit like how if Christianity was true you would have a unified theory of Christianity instead of the thousands of disparate theories currently in existence.My point exactly that Evolution if it were true, would be able to develop a unified theory of Evolution.
Yes.
Would Jesus?
A bit like how if Christianity was true you would have a unified theory of Christianity instead of the thousands of disparate theories currently in existence.
Commitment to have him tortured to death?Jesus went to the cross, I would say that is more than ample a test, of whether He had His Father's commitment.
Then you admit that the point you made was nonsense.Those divisions may or may not disappear, but their emerging and disappearing will certainly not stop there.
It would come right back, if it was only removed from written documentation, but not removed from the minds of those who know it.If you routinely removed all written theory - about 'Evolution' - from culture, it would reappear?
Is change in organisms over time real?So Evolution is as real as 'scurvy'?
The ToE like all science is provisional. It is not a religious dogma which is held by the believer to be true.My point exactly that Evolution if it were true
Still using that dishonest trick?It would come right back, if it was only removed from written documentation, but not removed from the minds of those who know it.
However, there would be major differences.
Certainly Lamarckism wouldn't return as a viable theory.
The book, The Preservation of Favoured Races wouldn't return, as wouldn't many others.
So in short, evolution, on paper, would occupy only a fraction of our shelves as it once did.
Don't they do it too? some just call it, "Origins."Still using that dishonest trick?
There is no such book. you are using a fragment of the SUBTITLE is the title, is a DELIBERATE attempt to create confusion, and to appeal to shame and fear.
Don't they do it too? some just call it, "Origins."
So why can't I?
ETA: Glad you're back. I pray all went well.
Then you admit that the point you made was nonsense.
Yes, but precisely why would a theory about Evolution, not necessarily evolve (subsequent discovering)?
There is a reason to believe, that Jesus would say the same things again, if we lost our record of it - He said them because He loved us.
You're not saying "we love people that struggle to believe 'Evolution'" so there is no reason to think anyone would bother with your theory?
I'm not trying to be "mean".
Evolution is an observable process.
It was observed and documented long before a divinity student and old earth creationist named Charles Darwin set out to disprove it once and for all.
That same divinity student who went on to recognize it. And to figure out how it happens.
And he was not the only one working on it.
If Darwin had never been born, we would be talking about Wallace's theory of evolution.
If every book about biology was to be lost tomorrow, And we humans lost all knowledge of evolution...
... we would eventually re-discover it.
Ok, but this is the point: would it be rediscovered in a way that justifies "Evolution"?
Like would people wait to see the human race develop into something else? Or would the old colloquialism "men improved on apes" reappear? Or would it become "men grew out of a fear of octopi"?
No it doesn't.If it (Evolution) was rediscovered in exactly the same way, wouldn't that suggest "design"? Doesn't the fact that Wallace almost discovered "Evolution" point to design?
Yes, that's exactly what would happen.
Exactly.So the efficacy of any one term for "Evolution", is as great as any other?
Like Water intoxication, is also called water poisoning, hyperhydration, overhydration - if you discover water intoxication one way, you discover it all ways.
This - in itself - is not "Evolution", it applies to Evolution.
Are we clear?
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?