Presupposition: mutation comes before adaptation - justified *how*?

[Gottservant]

Please: try to think about this without the Bible. This is a science not religion thread.

So if its about the stars, its "more and more" scientific, but if its about the words the stars represent, its "only" faith?

That's a bit rank for me, you had better water down your expectations of science, I don't think you will succeed where you think you will.

If I found that there was no reason to "take up my cross and follow Jesus", my life would be a whole lot easier - of such a reason I have not found one yet.

 

[Gottservant]

The universe existed long before life existed in the universe.

In the beginning, the universe waiting for Evolution (by mutation) had to come first?

 

[Larniavc]

If I found that there was no reason to "take up my cross and follow Jesus", my life would be a whole lot easier

At least on that we can agree.

 

[Gottservant]

Individuals do not evolve.

Individuals that are part of one species and then part of another, are "re-evolved" not evolved.

Just because you change the paint, does not mean you have to wash the car all over again.

 

[Larniavc]

In the beginning, the universe waiting for Evolution (by mutation) had to come first?

Sure. Why not.

 

[Gottservant]

Dunno. It has nothing to do with Psychology 101.

Sure it does: Jesus said it, it's an example of psychology.

 

[Larniavc]

Individuals that are part of one species and then part of another, are "re-evolved" not evolved.

That never happens.

 

[Gottservant]

In the beginning, the universe waiting for Evolution (by mutation) had to come first?

Sure. Why not.

Why?

 

[Gottservant]

That never happens.

You are assuming it never happens (re-evolution) when you have the same foundation (as Evolution)?

The end result would be a creature that was perfectly adapted to any possible selection pressure?

What would the temptation there be?

 

[Larniavc]

Why?

I don't get it. You said the universe was waiting for evolution. I agreed with you.

 

[Larniavc]

You are assuming it never happens (re-evolution) when you have the same foundation (as Evolution)?

It it every happened then where is the evidence of it happening? An organism does not start as one specie and the evolve into another.

That only happens with the X-Men.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't get it. You said the universe was waiting for evolution. I agreed with you.

If you went to a neurosurgeon, to operate on your brain, you would ask about his credentials and past experience, wouldn't you?

So why if I am going to trust a generation of children to living in this world, not check what people in this world believe? What their past is?

If you are not going to tell me why you believe what you believe, why would I leave my children in a vulnerable position - where they can't trust what is said to them?

Scientifically, I have an obligation to investigate the motivation you have for what you believe - as pertains to the Evolution I pass on: if you are not invested in that, why do you bother to learn Evolution at all? Do you want me to come up with a reason, or is your taste invested in bringing down people that don't believe what you do?

 

[Gottservant]

It it every happened then where is the evidence of it happening? An organism does not start as one specie and the evolve into another.

That only happens with the X-Men.

You're contextualizing specie driven inspiration, with manifesting the negative of exomorphic change, as unreasonable?

What if there is a world where the positive of exo-morphic change, is thought to mean the same thing (and is therefore open to conjecture)?

I put it to you that you mastery of conjecture is suffering because of Evolution, not gaining? Specifically the idea that mutation has to come first?

 

[driewerf]

Unless it was designed to do exactly what it has done.
God is so good at planning things, that He planned it.

He is so good he planned 4 million plus deaths?

 

[SkyWriting]

For this to make sense you would have to describe how a new adaption appear without a mutation.

We have no evidence for or method of detection a change made to a genome of a species that wasn't from either a mutation or human intervention.

For example: When rats are fed a high fat diet, the offspring show a higher ability to digest fats.
Similar studies exist for drought conditions showing metabolic changes that are inherited.

 

[SkyWriting]

He is so good he planned 4 million plus deaths?

Actually the death of every human is planned to the last instant.
Sorry.

Matthew 10:30
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Psalm 147:4
He counts the number of the stars;
He gives names to all of them.

John 3:20
in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know most things can be said, another way to what they actually need to be - what's the difference? If you don't get what you want from me, as an Evolutionist... what does your theory of Evolution say that you should do? I was happy to rephrase what I believe for you, but you can't do that for me?

The proposition remains: if you are not saying mutation comes first, when you say "mutation has to come before adaptation", what are you saying?

Mutations cause adaptations, but mutations are also adaptations. You're arguing which came first, the chicken or the egg.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It was a scientific experiment, you just refuse to believe that someone could be inspired by God to do better with Creation than had ever been done with Evolution before.

As to learning, there are plenty of things that I have found true about the words of Jesus, I am learning all the time to reinterpret and resubjectify those words in new contexts - as creates more meaning, when looked at from the greater perspective of God's inspiration of mankind. I have never, even once, used Jesus' words to confuse someone about the truth - if anything that should be humbling for an Evolutionist? You guys basically sell people strife in an atheoretical bubble wrap, whose only innocence is that you never really know what it means?

Except that it wasn't a scientific experiment, that's a post hoc attempt to rationalize a parable from the Bible.

 

[Shemjaza]

For example: When rats are fed a high fat diet, the offspring show a higher ability to digest fats.
Similar studies exist for drought conditions showing metabolic changes that are inherited.

The ability to trigger or not certain genetic traits in immediate offspring is itself an inherited trait. It also tends to revert when the climate, famine crisis returns to normal in a generation or two.

(A friend of mine did his genetics PHD on heat shock proteins in fruit flys).

 

[Shemjaza]

But whether that species lives or dies, is subjective? Somethings live then die, other things die then live?

No, extinct or not is not subjective.

So now you are saying "in the beginning, Evolution had to be first" - wow! you guys are so confusing!

No I'm not.

I'm just saying evolution is only relevant to genetic changes that are passed down across generations at the species level.

If they aren't, then they do not do anything related to evolution.

An adaptation can't have more than one consequence, but a mutation can? Can I get a word of consistency here?

An adaption is an effect, not a cause.

The sentence makes sense... it implies something about how hard it is to get cake to remain consistent with the recipe?

No. It doesn't. It's meaningless.

Put it this way, if Jesus said "Go the extra mile" what does that apply to, when it comes to Evolution?

Maybe it could be "You should listen to your neighbour who is trying to explain what they believe to you instead of disrespecting them."