Survival of the Fittest: An Interesting Side Effect of Death

[razeontherock]

once you have speciation, you will eventually get the difference between a frog and a fern. It's inevitable.

This is still assumption.

 

[razeontherock]

The small differences seen in a speciation accumulate. So, starting from a common ancestor and with enough speciation events within each lineage, it is inevitable that you are going to get the difference between fern and frog, or corn and cow, or kelp and whale.

Exception taken to bolded word. It is possible, and even plausible. It is also currently accepted theory. It is not inevitable. That simply pushes the bounds of logic, in the midst of zeal.

 

[jilfe]

As Christians, we are suppose to base all of our discussions on this topic, according to the Biblical text, scripture.

2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Acts:17:11: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Rom:15:4: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Gal:3:8: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Gal:3:22: But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

And many more that prove out scripture (Bible) is to be final authority when it comes to things that pertain to God.

So with all that said, where is it in Holy Scripture, the word evolution, please show the exact scripture, that yiou have discovered the word evolution, or please show us what scripture verses you have found that indicates evolution.

Where do you find these indicating verses at in the Bible?

When you show us these verses, please explain how you see evolution in them.
So we all can have a better understanding of how to adress these verses in the Bible, in these debatable discussions.

Thankyou.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

As Christians, we are suppose to base all of our discussions on this topic, according to the Biblical text, scripture.

2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Acts:17:11: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Rom:15:4: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Gal:3:8: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Gal:3:22: But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

And many more that prove out scripture (Bible) is to be final authority when it comes to things that pertain to God.

So with all that said, where is it in Holy Scripture, the word evolution, please show the exact scripture, that yiou have discovered the word evolution, or please show us what scripture verses you have found that indicates evolution.

Where do you find these indicating verses at in the Bible?

When you show us these verses, please explain how you see evolution in them.
So we all can have a better understanding of how to adress these verses in the Bible, in these debatable discussions.

Thankyou.

The Bible is not a science textbook, is not meant to be a science textbook, and 2/3 of all Christians on earth disagree with you that Scripture is the only authority.

In fact, the Bible authorizes reality itself as telling of God, which fundamentalists shun away out of their idolatry of Scripture.
Quite the irony, really.

 

[shernren]

So, starting from a common ancestor and with enough speciation events within each lineage, it is inevitable that you are going to get the difference between fern and frog, or corn and cow, or kelp and whale. Whatever the morphological, physiologic, or genetic distance you care to name, the accumulation of the small differences between an original species and its "offspring" will produce that distance with enough speciations.

Surely you are not claiming that all conceptually possible biodiversity is the result of microevolutionary accumulation (mutation, selection and speciation).

For example, we already have AI of increasing flexibility, sophisticated robotic manipulators, and 3D printers. It is not inconceivable that these two technologies could be coupled to produce a 3D printer and robotic manipulator powered by a program intelligent enough to: locate raw materials from its surroundings, process them through the printer, fabricate the parts necessary and perform the assembly required to produce a replica of itself. Thus, we are really not that far away from self-replicating machines, conceptually speaking (whether anyone will ever accumulate enough profit motive to go down that line of thought is a completely different story).

Suppose then that some catastrophe wipes us all out but leaves "fossils" of both us and these self-replicating machines. And then suppose some alien biologist comes across these fossils. No matter how rudimentary their knowledge of biology, would these alien biologists ever postulate that bipedal mammals and self-replicating robots ever had a common ancestor?

You will note that this situation is entirely hypothetical. Of all the fossils we have ever seen and all the extant biodiversity we have found, there is, vaguely speaking, nothing as "distant" from us as a self-replicating robot would be. That is precisely why I think that given our evidence evolution is a viable theory for explaining our current and past biodiversity. However, I do still have these lingering questions:

1. Is there anything we know evolution cannot do? We must recognize that there are both many adaptationist explanations of particular biological features with predictive power, and many adaptationist explanations of other biological features that cannot make any predictions and turn out to be utter adhockery. A lot of evolutionary psychology in particular seems to fall into this category. Setting boundaries for adaptationism would be very helpful in making it falsifiable, as compared to the current status quo where evolutionists feel entitled to point to any conceivable feature and say "Ha! It has adaptive function!" without always being able to spell out exactly what.

2. Do we have positive evidence that evolution happened, or simply negative (though consistent) evidence that "we cannot say it didn't happen"?

We might be able to make some headway on these questions if we asked ourselves: exactly what would help us recognize that a sentient MakerBot simply can't have any common ancestors with humans?

 

[juvenissun]

Surely you are not claiming that all conceptually possible biodiversity is the result of microevolutionary accumulation (mutation, selection and speciation).

For example, we already have AI of increasing flexibility, sophisticated robotic manipulators, and 3D printers. It is not inconceivable that these two technologies could be coupled to produce a 3D printer and robotic manipulator powered by a program intelligent enough to: locate raw materials from its surroundings, process them through the printer, fabricate the parts necessary and perform the assembly required to produce a replica of itself. Thus, we are really not that far away from self-replicating machines, conceptually speaking (whether anyone will ever accumulate enough profit motive to go down that line of thought is a completely different story).

Suppose then that some catastrophe wipes us all out but leaves "fossils" of both us and these self-replicating machines. And then suppose some alien biologist comes across these fossils. No matter how rudimentary their knowledge of biology, would these alien biologists ever postulate that bipedal mammals and self-replicating robots ever had a common ancestor?

You will note that this situation is entirely hypothetical. Of all the fossils we have ever seen and all the extant biodiversity we have found, there is, vaguely speaking, nothing as "distant" from us as a self-replicating robot would be. That is precisely why I think that given our evidence evolution is a viable theory for explaining our current and past biodiversity. However, I do still have these lingering questions:

1. Is there anything we know evolution cannot do? We must recognize that there are both many adaptationist explanations of particular biological features with predictive power, and many adaptationist explanations of other biological features that cannot make any predictions and turn out to be utter adhockery. A lot of evolutionary psychology in particular seems to fall into this category. Setting boundaries for adaptationism would be very helpful in making it falsifiable, as compared to the current status quo where evolutionists feel entitled to point to any conceivable feature and say "Ha! It has adaptive function!" without always being able to spell out exactly what.

2. Do we have positive evidence that evolution happened, or simply negative (though consistent) evidence that "we cannot say it didn't happen"?

We might be able to make some headway on these questions if we asked ourselves: exactly what would help us recognize that a sentient MakerBot simply can't have any common ancestors with humans?

Human wears clothes. They don't.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


This thread has had a clean up. As a reminder, the site rules include:


Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology.

 

[Greg1234]

The Bible is not a science textbook, is not meant to be a science textbook, and 2/3 of all Christians on earth disagree with you that Scripture is the only authority.

In fact, the Bible authorizes reality itself as telling of God, which fundamentalists shun away out of their idolatry of Scripture.
Quite the irony, really.

One can dismiss the view that a phenomenon is reducible to a physical instrument's feed ("science") without dismissing reality.

 

[Smidlee]

You cannot believe in microevolution and not macroevolution, because microevolution is the direct cause of macroevolution.

This is the whole debate between creation vs evolution.
This is a statement of faith and has not been proven.
I find it interesting evolutionist love to claim micro-evolution (no one doubts) is connected to macro-evolution but want to keep their distance to abiogenesis which so far has been shown not "physically" possible.

 

[Assyrian]

This is the whole debate between creation vs evolution.
This is a statement of faith and has not been proven.
I find it interesting evolutionist love to claim micro-evolution (no one doubts) is connected to macro-evolution but want to keep their distance to abiogenesis which so far has been shown not "physically" possible.

Maybe it is Creationists who want to conflate evolution with abiogenesis because abiogenesis hasn't been demonstrated yet.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

This is still assumption.

You speak as if assumption, when sought with flawless reason and virtual certainty, is somehow impotent.
Can we know that the grass will grow? Of course not, but what would you put your money on?
Seriously, making God the author of confusion is simply bad exegesis. It's almost cruel that He would provide so much evidence of something that isn't true. Evolution is as real as the gravity that holds you down to the Earth.

It's not really the evidence, but the lack of evidence for a young Earth that condemns the notion that God created us 6000 years ago. That's not even enough time for the planet to repopulate across all it's corners after a worldwide flood. And so what do creationists do? They invent old Earth creationism.
It's just a falling backwards of theology and should be dismissed.

 

[Smidlee]

. Evolution is as real as the gravity that holds you down to the Earth.

Note that evolutionist never claims that evolution is as real as abiogenesis. They want to connect evolution with one of the four physical forces. Thus evolution becomes dogma. Can the four physical forces alone explain everything we see today?

 

[super animator]

Note that evolutionist never claims that evolution is as real as abiogenesis. They want to connect evolution with one of the four physical forces. Thus evolution becomes dogma.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

 

[sfs]

Note that evolutionist never claims that evolution is as real as abiogenesis.

Of course not, since there is far more evidence that evolution has occurred than that life arose by natural processes.

They want to connect evolution with one of the four physical forces.

We want to let nonscientists know how well supported evolution is.

Thus evolution becomes dogma.

Nope. Dogma is declared correct based on authority. Scientists have concluded that evolution is correct based on evidence. If creationists want to overthrow evolution, all they have to do is quit whining and start presenting some evidence. (Real evidence, I mean, not the ridiculous arguments we see around here so often.)

Can the four physical forces alone explain everything we see today?

Irrelevant.

 

[Smidlee]

Of course not, since there is far more evidence that evolution has occurred than that life arose by natural processes.


We want to let nonscientists know how well supported evolution is.

I know better. Evolutionist want to pick the easy stuff like antibiotic resistance to prove their theory's biggest claims and not deal with the much more difficult problem of exactly where did all this genetic code come from. (which includes abiogenesis) Evolution explanation 99.99% of the time is simply "stuff happens"

Nope. Dogma is declared correct based on authority. Scientists have concluded that evolution is correct based on evidence. If creationists want to overthrow evolution, all they have to do is quit whining and start presenting some evidence. (Real evidence, I mean, not the ridiculous arguments we see around here so often.)

Evolutionist hasn't shown "the little eyeball that could" story is possible. There is nothing to really overthrow. It's like trying to prove "beaming people up on a star ship" is not possible.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Note that evolutionist never claims that evolution is as real as abiogenesis. They want to connect evolution with one of the four physical forces. Thus evolution becomes dogma. Can the four physical forces alone explain everything we see today?

Abiogenesis was a God willed event. But it also happened naturally, just as evolution.
It's something you don't have to know exactly, step for every tiny step, how it occurred to find it reasonable. It wouldn't be so farfetched if you took an honest, mental picture of the basic idea of ambiogenesis. It's actually quite brilliant.

 

[sfs]

I know better.

You would be rare indeed among creationists if you actually did know what you were talking about. I have yet to see any creationist give a coherent, testable alternative explanation for most of the genetic evidence for evolution (that is, for common descent). For example, what is your personal explanation for the shared mutation in GULO among primates? What about the strong correlation between the apparent age of a transposon family and its distribution among species? Or between both and the degree of divergence between members of the family? Or the different divergences in those transposons seen on the X and Y chromosomes? There are thousands of lines of support for evolution, and creationists generally ignore almost all of them.

Evolutionist want to pick the easy stuff like antibiotic resistance to prove their theory's biggest claims and not deal with the much more difficult problem of exactly where did all this genetic code come from.

"Evolutionists" want to deal with evolution. We don't want to deal with where the genetic code came from because that's a different problem, and our tools don't work to address it. And yes, it's a harder problem. So what? Maybe biology can only explain all of the history of life since the first cell. Creationism explains nothing at all.

(which includes abiogenesis) Evolution explanation 99.99% of the time is simply "stuff happens"

And creationists response 99.99% of the time is to close their eyes and shout loudly, "No it doesn't!".

Evolutionist hasn't shown "the little eyeball that could" story is possible. There is nothing to really overthrow. It's like trying to prove "beaming people up on a star ship" is not possible.

Start dealing with the evidence, not little stories.

 

[Smidlee]

Start dealing with the evidence, not little stories.

Evidence like this where even evolutionist admits there is no signs of evolution.

"No one expected such an advanced brain would have evolved so early in the history of multicellular animals."

In another words, "Look at that. That evidence surely went against our theory so time to make up another story."

 

[Smidlee]

Abiogenesis was a God willed event. But it also happened naturally, just as evolution.

We must have different definitions of "naturally". Aboigenesis goes against the known laws of nature including chemistry.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

We must have different definitions of "naturally". Aboigenesis goes against the known laws of nature including chemistry.

How do you know that if you don't even know how abiogenesis happened? See, the whole YEC agenda is one big misrepresentation after the next.