I've conceded that while wrong about the past, Evolution is useful mechanically

[gluadys]

It's limbs, which are still useful,

Ah, but you didn't say "limb"; you said "leg"


One the problems of evolution (trial and error) on a grand scale would be, for example, a leg would become useless long before it became a useful wing.


So, you now agree that a useless leg may still be a useful limb.

Hence, no bar to eventually becoming a wing.

are no where close becoming wings.

Irrelevant. If non-leg limbs can be useful without becoming wings, they can also be useful in the interim between being legs and being wings. Whether or not they ever become wings, legs which no longer function as legs are not a problem as you first claimed.

They just have to function in some useful capacity.

 

[Smidlee]

Ah, but you didn't say "limb"; you said "leg"

You are just nitpicking . Yes I should have wrote limbs instead of legs. (legs/arms transforming wings were only an example. land creature transforming into a whale is another ) Yet a major rearranging of parts (stuff) often creates chaos long before things get back to order. Even simple example of rearranging my living room at first creates a big mess before everything goes back in order.

Yet evolution amazingly has the ability to rearrange jawbones into ear bones without affecting the fitness of a creature.

 

[sfs]

You are just nitpicking . Yes I should have wrote limbs instead of legs. (legs/arms transforming wings were only an example. land creature transforming into a whale is another ) Yet a major rearranging of parts (stuff) often creates chaos long before things get back to order. Even simple example of rearranging my living room at first creates a big mess before everything goes back in order.

Yet evolution amazingly has the ability to rearrange jawbones into ear bones without affecting the fitness of a creature.

Well, it is pretty impressive, yes. Especially in cases where we have intermediate fossils showing how the transition occurred, with all of the parts being functional and nonchaotic throughout. Like Liaoconodon hui, which had the bones that eventually became ear bones detached from the rest of the jaw, or microraptor, a dinosaur with full flight feathers on all four legs.

 

[gluadys]

You are just nitpicking . Yes I should have wrote limbs instead of legs.

And in that case you would have been wrong, since the limbs did not become useless. They simply acquired a different use.

 

[Smidlee]

Well, it is pretty impressive, yes. Especially in cases where we have intermediate fossils showing how the transition occurred, with all of the parts being functional and nonchaotic throughout. Like Liaoconodon hui, which had the bones that eventually became ear bones detached from the rest of the jaw, or microraptor, a dinosaur with full flight feathers on all four legs.

First this fossil was found in China. Also this is still a long shot of bones moving to the ear to solve the problem of impedance mismatch. This is another case scientist grabbing on to anything to fit their story telling. Just like finding life/water on Mars. Notice this fairy tale had to happen twice.

 

[Gottservant]

I still feel like Evolution fundamentally misses perspective. Like a scientist will set an evolutionary algorithm going and it will go through so many variations, until presto! It is a useful algorithm... and then the scientist will say "I told it what to look for and it did it itself!".

Yet this is saying neither God nor Son, is needed in the act of Creation.

But how could the scientist know which outcome was relevant, without God; and what would the scientist achieve, if the Son did not control the roll of the dice, by which the program operates? So perspective is lost.

A man without perspective, is as a castaway, lost on the ocean: he neither keeps hope, nor makes headway - for he is lost!

It's so easy to comment from the sidelines, of course... I don't pretend to know the first thing about chemical bonds in DNA sequences. On the other hand, I do know that God cannot reveal anything, without the stage first being set, for what He wants to reveal. That last point, in part, motivates me to first seek out the broader reality, before I start thinking about contending with people over science... Wise?

 

[seeingeyes]

That last point, in part, motivates me to first seek out the broader reality, before I start thinking about contending with people over science... Wise?

I think so. No one can specialize in every field that it would take to fully understand our whole universe and planet in depth. We simply don't have enough years. How many PhDs can one person acquire? Never enough.

So, to some extent, we must delegate our knowledge-gathering to others.

Or in other words, pick your battles.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes, pick your battles!

This just recently occurred to me, that actually science and Faith are diametrically opposed: I thought about what the Evolutionist is expecting:: that science will somehow be right, and be so right that you can't not believe it, compared with what the Creationist believes:: that Creation is so amazing, you will be compelled to work really hard at changing yourself for the better of it. You know what I'm saying? You see the difference?

So on the one hand, you expect something from nothing, and on the other hand you give something for nothing... and there is no way to reverse the two.

I'm not sure what that means, but I think it says something about what our real approach to Evolution should be. Like that if we give up studying the scripture to argue with Evolution, we are barking up the wrong tree. If what we have is good, we should never have to give up our study.

I have endeavoured to ask the Lord for principles concerning this and will continue to do so. But if you have thoughts: please share!

 

[Gottservant]

I just got something extra, which is a major weakness in the Evolution argument:

they don't ever change the word for "mutation"

in other words, they think they are above the truth because they believe in Evolution.

Totally gobsmacked people in the Evolution forum when I said it!

 

[gluadys]

I just got something extra, which is a major weakness in the Evolution argument:

they don't ever change the word for "mutation"

Could you clarify why it should be changed?


What makes it a weakness?


I do grant that the meaning of the word, biologically, has changed over the last century as the mechanism of evolutionary change has become better understood.

 

[Gottservant]

Ok, its like this:

the standard test for a theory, is whether believing it still makes it possible to live up to the standards it sets...

...so, you have this theory Evolution, which is based on the idea that things mutate...

...but does the theory expect its own term for mutation to "mutate"?

The answer is no.

So what that proves is that they are living a double standard, on the one hand they want to say there is no fixed order in Creation... but on the other hand, they want to keep things safe and predictable for themselves - and not change the word mutate to anything else "mutato" "mutatei" etc.

If they were consistent, they would say something like "now mutate is mutatee, because we are hoping that the theory of Evolution will further evolve, on the basis of this actually not even random mutation"...

...but they just won't!

It's as simple as the fact that once you know the name of the truth, you don't call it by anything else.

 

[dysert]

The blind-faith evolutionist idea of bacteria arising from gas dust, rocks and ammonia seas etc turns out to be pure fiction. So also bacteria turning into amoebas and amoebas turning into horses.

But do organism's adapt? does the epigenome work? Certainly that is all true.

I recently spent some quality Q&A time with evolutionists in another forum and learned a few things. (They were very nice hosts

One thing I learned is that evolution doesn't deal with the origin of things, so to say that they teach that bacteria arises from gas dust is, from my current understanding, not right. They don't concern themselves with how it all got started -- just with how it continues.

Another thing I learned is that they never claim that amoebas turn into horses. Horses will always be horses, amoebas always amoebas. It's just that each organism adapts to its environment so it's more suited to procreate there.

I just wanted to be sure that when we talk about evolution we're using the term in the same way that evolutionists use it.

 

[Smidlee]

I recently spent some quality Q&A time with evolutionists in another forum and learned a few things. (They were very nice hosts

One thing I learned is that evolution doesn't deal with the origin of things, so to say that they teach that bacteria arises from gas dust is, from my current understanding, not right. They don't concern themselves with how it all got started -- just with how it continues.

Another thing I learned is that they never claim that amoebas turn into horses. Horses will always be horses, amoebas always amoebas. It's just that each organism adapts to its environment so it's more suited to procreate there.

I just wanted to be sure that when we talk about evolution we're using the term in the same way that evolutionists use it.

Are you trying to deny that Darwin's Tree of Life and common descent is a part of evolution? Have you ever heard of a book called "Origins of Species"? So you never read about the claim a land creature became a whale which would require some serious re-engineering?

P.S you are correct that evolutionist doesn't claim that any modern creature evolving into another modern creature. Evolution teaches that modern creatures come from mythological creatures of the past. Example: man did not evolve from chimps but there was a mythological creature in the past that had two offspring; one went to Harvard and the other went ape.

 

[dysert]

Are you trying to deny that Darwin's Tree of Life and common descent is a part of evolution? Have you ever heard of a book called "Origins of Species"? So you never read about the claim a land creature became a whale which would require some serious re-engineering?

Actually, I'm not trying to deny (or promote) anything. I'm just wanted to be sure that we're all talking about the same thing when we discuss evolution. My understanding is admittedly still limited, so please bear with me if I make some fundamental mistakes.

It's my understanding that Darwin's Tree of Life (and common descent) theorizes that everything came from one common ancestor. Now, I personally don't believe that's true, but I think that's the theory says. And I don't think that evolution per se addresses how this one common ancestor came to be.

Yes, I am somewhat familiar with the Origin of Species.

Yes, I have heard the *claim* that a land creature became a whale, but what I'm saying is that an evolutionist probably wouldn't make that claim. I think we have to be careful that we don't mischaracterize what evolutionists actually say. If we are talking about two different things, we'll never reach a common understanding.

Again, I'm not talking about accepting something that's biblically untrue, I'm just wanting to make sure everyone is on the same page, and that we at least all know what it is we're discussing.

 

[gluadys]

Ok, its like this:

the standard test for a theory, is whether believing it still makes it possible to live up to the standards it sets...

I don't know about that, but I won't dispute it now.

...so, you have this theory Evolution, which is based on the idea that things mutate...

...but does the theory expect its own term for mutation to "mutate"?

The answer is no.

Actually, the meaning (or rather the understanding of what it is that mutates) has changed. Originally, biologists spoke of organisms mutating, then of genes mutating. Now "mutation" is usually applied to DNA sequences--whether they are part of a gene or not.

So what that proves is that they are living a double standard, on the one hand they want to say there is no fixed order in Creation... but on the other hand, they want to keep things safe and predictable for themselves - and not change the word mutate to anything else "mutato" "mutatei" etc.

If they were consistent, they would say something like "now mutate is mutatee, because we are hoping that the theory of Evolution will further evolve, on the basis of this actually not even random mutation"...

...but they just won't!

Unbelievable! You want the spelling of the word to change!?

Problem is that evolution (as in Theory of Evolution) applies to biological change. Words are not biological entities, so the theory doesn't apply to them.

When the term "evolution" is used in non-biological fields (e.g. linguistic, stellar, chemical, etc.) it is referring to a different process of change--not one that is covered by the Theory of Evolution which only applies to biology.

 

[gluadys]

I just wanted to be sure that when we talk about evolution we're using the term in the same way that evolutionists use it.

An admirable aim. Much of the time objections to evolution are based on strawman concepts of what it is.

Evolution teaches that modern creatures come from mythological creatures of the past. Example: man did not evolve from chimps but there was a mythological creature in the past that had two offspring; one went to Harvard and the other went ape.

Not quite, Smidlee. The one that went to Harvard is also an ape. The other ape is a chimpanzee. Their "mythological" common ancestor was also an ape.

Actually, I'm not trying to deny (or promote) anything. I'm just wanted to be sure that we're all talking about the same thing when we discuss evolution. My understanding is admittedly still limited, so please bear with me if I make some fundamental mistakes.

Sure.

It's my understanding that Darwin's Tree of Life (and common descent) theorizes that everything came from one common ancestor. Now, I personally don't believe that's true, but I think that's the theory says. And I don't think that evolution per se addresses how this one common ancestor came to be.

Right. The research directed to discerning the origin of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) will (it is hoped) come up with a theory of abiogenesis (how did life originate from more simply organized chemicals?)

The theory of evolution addresses what happens after the first successful self-replicators came into being. A theory of abiogenesis would deal with both the chemistry that produced the first self-replicators and the eventual organization of self-replicators into living cells.

To some extent there is an chronological overlap, but they are still different fields of biology.

Yes, I have heard the *claim* that a land creature became a whale, but what I'm saying is that an evolutionist probably wouldn't make that claim.

Yes, he/she would. Look up "the evolution of whales". Pakicetus, the oldest known animal with some whale-like adaptations, was a terrestrial mammal. And several intermediate forms are also known. The living non-marine mammal most closely related to whales is the hippopotamus.'

Other marine mammals also have terrestrial origins. For example, manatees and dugongs share a common ancestor with elephants.


Meanwhile, seals, walruses and sea lions are more closely related to dogs and bears.

 

[Smidlee]

Not quite, Smidlee. The one that went to Harvard is also an ape. The other ape is a chimpanzee. Their "mythological" common ancestor was also an ape.


.

Now you are just trying to split hairs over names. Our laws protects human rights but not ape rights.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans-arent-apes-2012.html

"If we must accept that humans are apes, then we must equally accept that chimpanzees are monkeys, and those awful parents at the zoo are right. I don't. I see value in precision about phylogeny, and for that purpose I have taxonomic terms. Humans are hominoids, and anthropoids, and haplorhines, and primates. And mammals. We shouldn't smuggle taxonomic principles into everyday language to make a political argument. That's what "humans are apes" ultimately is -- it's an argument that we aren't as great as we think we are. .....
We aren't apes. And it's OK to teach your children that chimpanzees are apes, not monkeys. Because that's what I do." -(note he's clearly an evolutionist)

 

[gluadys]

Now you are just trying to split hairs over names. Our laws protects human rights but not ape rights.

So, our laws protect the rights of some apes, but not all apes.

Humans aren't monkeys. We aren't apes, either. | john hawks weblog

"If we must accept that humans are apes, then we must equally accept that chimpanzees are monkeys, and those awful parents at the zoo are right. I don't. I see value in precision about phylogeny, and for that purpose I have taxonomic terms. Humans are hominoids, and anthropoids, and haplorhines, and primates. And mammals. We shouldn't smuggle taxonomic principles into everyday language to make a political argument. That's what "humans are apes" ultimately is -- it's an argument that we aren't as great as we think we are. .....
We aren't apes. And it's OK to teach your children that chimpanzees are apes, not monkeys. Because that's what I do." -(note he's clearly an evolutionist)

He is right, of course, in saying that for precision, we should use scientific terms. What he does not state, although it is true, is that "ape" is the common term for "hominoid". Yes, humans are hominoids. So are chimpanzees. And gorillas. And orangutans. They are all primates too. So are monkeys, and lemurs and tarsiers.

Of course, as in many other situations, common language definitions and scientific definitions don't quite coincide.

 

[DennisTate]

Hi there!

I'm mostly looking for constructive criticism, following my decision to acknowledge that while wrong about the past, Evolution is useful in mechanically repeatable contexts.

I have not yet married Evolution with a Theistic perspective.

......

I would like to think that the blog that I wrote a couple of years ago might be of some inspiration or encouragement to you?!

Dogmatic Atheists Lack Mathematical Aptitude.: Did God Evolve?

Dogmatic Atheists Lack Mathematical Aptitude.

 

[DennisTate]

I don't know about that, but I won't dispute it now.



Actually, the meaning (or rather the understanding of what it is that mutates) has changed. Originally, biologists spoke of organisms mutating, then of genes mutating. Now "mutation" is usually applied to DNA sequences--whether they are part of a gene or not.






....

These days the concept of mutation or in a sense evolution can be taken right down into the subatomic level, Wave Theory?!



grandunifiedtheory.org.il/gender/g1.htm

"Pulling and gravitation, which resemble basic feminine traits, are the dominant properties of the magnetic loop. Consequently, magnetic loops have a capacity for storing energy and act to maintain the structural integrity of the entire wave formation. The electronic/energetic loop consists of expanding properties that disperse energetic matter that “disappears” into space. This is synonymous with masculine characteristics." (Dr. Chaim Tejman)

Dr. Tejman does a fantastic job of explaining how the behavior of fundamental energy would almost certainly lead to life and thought processes.

Grand Unified Theory: Wave Theory and Life

"The essential matter from which our universe is created is energetic matter. It behaves like living matter, creating every known entity, including living objects and even thought (which occurs through energetic matter–wave interaction). The essential structure of energetic matter is high-energy (concentrated energetic matter) electro-magnetic waves (picture above). This simple structure is the basis of everything: every energetic formation and the universe. In picture 2, we see that the DNA (double helix) of all living formations has the same structure as waves: two loops of the same energetic matter, behaving according to the same rules." (Dr. Chaim Tejman)