So with a change in selection pressures, monkeys could give rise to different humans?

[Bungle_Bear]

If you understood what you were saying, you would have said "your arguments have been contextualized in a way a child could understand - I forgive you, but you are going to have to study what has been said or how or why, before we can go any further"

I understand perfectly what I said. What you wrote does not have the same meaning as my original statement.

 

[Gottservant]

I understand perfectly what I said. What you wrote does not have the same meaning as my original statement.

Really?

You said:

Your arguments have been refuted in every thread in which they appear.

As if their appearance is what was wrong with them (those arguments), not having quoted even one of them - for the sake of dignity?

 

[Freodin]

That doesn't follow.

If I have a child out of a desire to be as instinctive as possible, that child will be born with a greater aptitude for "instinct".

You are saying, "there is no instinct, encoded in the DNA" yet every creature born, is born with some kind of instinct.

No, that is not how genetics work. Please, just try to learn something about the subject that you constantly mangle here.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Really?

Yes, really.

You said:



As if their appearance is what was wrong with them (those arguments), not having quoted even one of them - for the sake of dignity?

Firstly, the comment was directed to a different user, not you. Secondly, if you know anything about the user to whom the comment was directed you would know that the comment is accurate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If I have a child out of a desire to be as instinctive as possible, that child will be born with a greater aptitude for "instinct".

That's not how evolution works. And a child cannot be born with a 'greater aptitude' for instinct. That makes no sense.

 

[Ophiolite]

The transference of a belief in knowledge, to the object, as reinforcement, for a proposed theory. Yes.

Thank you. You have just agreed that your only reason for thinking that some people believe "monkeys somehow know what they are evolving" is that you believe this. Do you understand why that makes little sense?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The argument neglects one thing

Rather , I think, the argument neglects everything true. Otherwise, no one would fall for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm just taking the assertion, at face value.

If monkeys can evolve humans, different monkeys can evolve different humans.

It's like the most basic interpretation, you can imagine?

Ummm . . . no. Evolution is a "one way street". Now could other intelligent simians have evolved? Yes, but we know that did not happen. Your OP appears to be rather pointless.

 

[Aman777]

Your views have been refuted time and time again by several members. The lying referred to by Bungle Bear is your persistent denial of this obvious fact. Apparently persistent lying is acceptable on CF if practised by someone who self identifies as Christian even though several of their beliefs are unknown in any Christian denomination.

For your convenience the Report button can be found below and to the left.

I am sorry that you seem to wish to remain frustrated, without posting a single refute of any of my posts. Big hat, no cattle. I will give you a C for trying to camouflage your thinking but calling someone else a liar, is against TOS.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Most people have NO idea who Jehovah is. Do you?

Do you understand that Jehovah doesn't like your behaviour?

How would you know? It's obvious that you don't even know who He is.

 

[Aman777]

If you understood what you were saying, you would have said "your arguments have been contextualized in a way a child could understand - I forgive you, but you are going to have to study what has been said or how or why, before we can go any further"

Actually, that is a good question: how would you explain "Evolution" to a child?

It would have to be Magic since it has no evidence which supports it.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am sorry that you seem to wish to remain frustrated, without posting a single refute of any of my posts. Big hat, no cattle. I will give you a C for trying to camouflage your thinking but calling someone else a liar, is against TOS.

Yes, I know it is. But when I weigh up my ethical commitment to truth against the TOS of this forum, I find my commitment to truth outweighs my obligation to the forum and therefore find it necessary to repeat that you are lying and you have done it again here.

Please note, that in denying that your arguments have been refuted you are calling several others liars. You are also in breach of the TOS. Feel free to report me, but that will begin a process wherein I will seek to have you banned for persistent lying.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

How would you know? It's obvious that you don't even know who He is.

You quote the verse I posted, then ask me how I know he dislikes your dishonesty? Just as a reminder, the verse is Proverbs 12:22. It's in your bible

 

[Gottservant]

Guys, guys, guys: don't let this thread be shut down.

I think an interesting direction we could take the conversation is this: God creates by placing the things He creates in relationship with one another (the lion he puts in Africa, the bear he puts in the woodlands of America, the Tasmanian tiger he puts in Australia); what is it about Evolution, that differs from this model of placing things in their proper environment? How does "just evolving" learn from its environment in order to create creatures that know what they are evolving for?

Selection doesn't work by derivation, so animals had to have some sort of instinct, for them to evolve appropriately - what would that instinct have been?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Guys, guys, guys: don't let this thread be shut down.

I think an interesting direction we could take the conversation is this: God creates by placing the things He creates in relationship with one another (the lion he puts in Africa, the bear he puts in the woodlands of America, the Tasmanian tiger he puts in Australia); what is it about Evolution, that differs from this model of placing things in their proper environment? How does "just evolving" learn from its environment in order to create creatures that know what they are evolving for?

Selection doesn't work by derivation, so animals had to have some sort of instinct, for them to evolve appropriately - what would that instinct have been?

Ignoring what others have told you already is discourteous:
1. Creatures (why are you precluding plants and other organisms from this thread?) do not "know what they are evolving for.
2. No animal (or other organism) has an instinct to evolve, they simply try their best to survive. The one's that survive get to procreate - that's how evolution works.

 

[Gottservant]

Ignoring what others have told you already is discourteous:
1. Creatures (why are you precluding plants and other organisms from this thread? do not "know what they are evolving for.
2. No animal (or other organism) has an instinct to evolve, they simply try their best to survive. The one's that survive get to procreate - that's how evolution works.

Yes but the ones with instinct, evolve the right way.

You don't see Evolution weeding out, that which does not know to evolve the right way?

Instinct is heritable, even from organ donation (there was a story of someone receiving a liver from someone who ate a lot of McDonald's and the patient receiving the liver inherited the apetite for McDonald's).

Whether or not you think my instinct for understanding Evolution is interesting or not, you are not explaining what instinct I am supposed to have and you are getting in the way of my adapting, by insisting that I understand the connection between ape and human fossils.

Jesus created us all different, and you are trying to erase that difference? Because you don't want to let go of a difference that makes you out to be your own god?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes but the ones with instinct, evolve the right way.

You don't see Evolution weeding out, that which does not know to evolve the right way?

Please explain, then, why 99% of organisms that have ever existed are now extinct.

Whether or not you think my instinct for understanding Evolution is interesting or not, you are not explaining what instinct I am supposed to have and you are getting in the way of my adapting, by insisting that I understand the connection between ape and human fossils.

And there's another thing you've been told and are ignoring - individuals do not evolve, populations evolve.

 

[Sparagmos]

It's just a fact, if you have what survives, and you want something new (regardless), you have to give up what you had - if you give up what you have had and you are human (with the knowledge of good and evil) your only alternative is to believe, that is, in the transference of one property to another, that the preceeding somehow wants it to happen (because if they did not want it to happen, in principle, it wouldn't). Moreover, maintaining this position, that apes can somehow reject what they have been in favour of becoming something better, diminishes the possibility that it is anything other than knowledge you think you have.

Do you believe animals and humans are conscious and in control of the molecular processes going on in our bodies, and choose these processes? I can’t even choose the gender of my baby but you think I can choose my descendants’ mutations?

 

[Gottservant]

Do you believe animals and humans are conscious and in control of the molecular processes going on in our bodies, and choose these processes? I can’t even choose the gender of my baby but you think I can choose my descendants’ mutations?

You know what makes you feel good, and what makes you feel bad - if you have done what you were told, at all (Jesus said "either make the tree good and the fruit good, or make the tree bad and the fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit" - do you think He said that, for no reason at all?).

I think you know to decide one way or the other - or you would not be listening to me now.

In time then, what matters will matter more and what does not will not at all.

 

[Gottservant]

Please explain, then, why 99% of organisms that have ever existed are now extinct.

Are you saying that everything that has become extinct, will never be seen again?

That's a bold claim: but its one the Bible rejects.

And there's another thing you've been told and are ignoring - individuals do not evolve, populations evolve.

Individuals have instinct, and instinct evolves. Your attempt to belittle making appropriate references to example, only points to a weakness in your argument that you control the outcome of the Evolution you undertake. Individuals that are gathered together (into species) are still individuals, I will never stop caring about the individual, no matter what you insult me with.

It's about time Evolution showed some maturity, the world needs us.