Survival of the Fittest: An Interesting Side Effect of Death

[SilenceInMotion]

This part of evolution theory is not theory, it is fact. After enough time goes by, species will either die or survive. Through this process, they gain small augments. With time, these augments (microevolution) accumulate, causing a visible change in the organism (macroevolution).

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

But sometimes, sporadic mutation can occur. Most of the time, these mutations are benign, and don’t really do anything for the creature. However, they can prove to be essential in the next mutation that occurs.
Sporadic mutation can also be harmful. It can prove to be problematic to the creature, and can be genetically borne to go to the next of kin, such as the albino mutation.

Rarely, though it does occur, sporadic mutation can be beneficial. In Darwin’s famous example of finches, we see a mutation take place which makes them superior to the rest of their species- longer beaks. Through the mutation, they can dig deeper into wood and catch bugs, having an advantage. They stick around long enough and give it their kin, and eventually they outnumber their previous form.
And in the event of a food shortage, guess what happens to the other finches?

This is how evolution happens.


And it is problematic for those who oppose evolution, because it is virtually invincible logic. When enough time goes by, animals will change more and more until they resemble something else completely.

Anyways, the purpose of this thread is to talk about why so many Christians have a hard time with the evidence. You would sentence a criminal according to evidence, dress to the weather by what a forecaster evidences, etc. In fact, moastly all decisions you make is based on evidences.

Jesus uses the word ‘truth’ more then any other word in Scripture, and yet it seems like, for the sheer sake of being stubborn about Genesis, some Christians want to oppose ‘truth’ when it comes to science. Gravity is ‘just a theory’, but jump off a building and see what happens. In the same way, observe a kingdom of animals for a few million years and watch what happens.

 

[jilfe]

If God created it to work that way, that's God's business, however, this phenomena, can only happen over great expanses of time, if the LORD tarries that long,

However, macroevolution NEVER happened YET, because GOD created all life, within the Biblical time record, which is only within thousands of years of time.

That's why macroevolution changes is after the fact of creation, NOT the cause of living creation.

 

[Godel]

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

Actually you can. People like to bring up all sorts of examples that "prove" evolution in modern times. Moths changing from light colored to dark colored.. but after all that time, are they anything other than just a moth still? How many thousands of generations of fruit flies have been observed in labs? After all these thousands and thousands of generations, have they produced anything other than more fruit flies?

Rarely, though it does occur, sporadic mutation can be beneficial. In Darwin’s famous example of finches, we see a mutation take place which makes them superior to the rest of their species- longer beaks. Through the mutation, they can dig deeper into wood and catch bugs, having an advantage. They stick around long enough and give it their kin, and eventually they outnumber their previous form.
And in the event of a food shortage, guess what happens to the other finches?

This isn't "mutation". The food supply in a certain area gave birds with certain beak shapes an advantage. All of the various beak shapes were all already present in the genetic code. After certain shapes die out in a population, those genes aren't available anymore. The genetic code hasn't "mutated" - existing genes weren't changed or altered, some simply became unavailable to the population, it's not the same thing.

 

[juvenissun]

This part of evolution theory is not theory, it is fact. After enough time goes by, species will either die or survive. Through this process, they gain small augments. With time, these augments (microevolution) accumulate, causing a visible change in the organism (macroevolution).

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

You are brainwashed. We do not know if this is true.

So, save the rest of your argument.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

You are brainwashed. We do not know if this is true.

So, save the rest of your argument.

No, you are brainwashed. So save the rest of your argument.

We know it's true because mutations don't simply get canceled out by other mutations. They accumulate and consolidate. Do it enough times and what happens?
Oh yea, nothing. Do you know how illogical that is?

Furthermore,evolution takes a long time. If it happens in your lifetime, then the theory of evolution is false because ToE posits extreme amounts of time- starting over 3 billion years ago. Creationist arguments openly reveal that they are built on a false premise, with yours being no exception.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Actually you can. People like to bring up all sorts of examples that "prove" evolution in modern times. Moths changing from light colored to dark colored.. but after all that time, are they anything other than just a moth still? How many thousands of generations of fruit flies have been observed in labs? After all these thousands and thousands of generations, have they produced anything other than more fruit flies?

This isn't "mutation". The food supply in a certain area gave birds with certain beak shapes an advantage. All of the various beak shapes were all already present in the genetic code. After certain shapes die out in a population, those genes aren't available anymore. The genetic code hasn't "mutated" - existing genes weren't changed or altered, some simply became unavailable to the population, it's not the same thing.

Just because generations pass doesn't mean they change. Mutation is dependant on conditions, not time. Time is only relevant to how long it takes for these things to happen.

And yes, they are mutations. God made them that way through evolution. You can point at Scripture and tell me your literal notion of it (which fits nowhere with reality), or you can just concede that Genesis is a symbolic non-fiction (which fits plenty in reality).

 

[Greg1234]

This part of evolution theory is not theory, it is fact. After enough time goes by, species will either die or survive. Through this process, they gain small augments. With time, these augments (microevolution) accumulate, causing a visible change in the organism (macroevolution).

Such is the nature of the soul's activity- to animate and operate the outermost body. There were changes effected in the fall and there were changes brought on by the Nazarene.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Such is the nature of the soul's activity- to animate and operate the outermost body. There were changes effected in the fall and there were changes brought on by the Nazarene.

I have no idea what you are saying, but

young Earth creationism is gobbitygook.

 

[Greg1234]

I have no idea what you are saying, but

young Earth creationism is gobbitygook.

It's in the bible. Study what has been given. Also apply what needs to be.

 

[Godel]

Just because generations pass doesn't mean they change. Mutation is dependant on conditions, not time. Time is only relevant to how long it takes for these things to happen.

Doesn't change the fact that you haven't demonstrated your point. I've given evidence of micro changes that have thusfar yet to lead to any macro change whatsoever.

And yes, they are mutations. God made them that way through evolution. You can point at Scripture and tell me your literal notion of it (which fits nowhere with reality), or you can just concede that Genesis is a symbolic non-fiction (which fits plenty in reality).

I don't doubt microevolution did make them that way - but different beak shapes already present in the genetic code are not "mutations".

I've given no "notion" of anything Scripture says. All I'm saying is your point in this thread is so far unsupported.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Doesn't change the fact that you haven't demonstrated your point. I've given evidence of micro changes that have thusfar yet to lead to any macro change whatsoever.

I don't doubt microevolution did make them that way - but different beak shapes already present in the genetic code are not "mutations".

I've given no "notion" of anything Scripture says. All I'm saying is your point in this thread is so far unsupported.

The gas meter on your car will stay the same so long as you are not driving it. But the more you drive it, the more the meter will go from full to empty.

That is how evolution works- if the organism is under nurturing conditions, it will not change much. But put it in hazardous conditions where it starts to slowly mutate, and it will eventually become something else.

It is an observed mechanism of life. Just like the meter on your car is not simply going to stop when you drive it, so to does evolution not stop as mutations occur.

It is not only supported, but proven. The whole 'pics or didn't happen' argument is absurd.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

It's in the bible. Study what has been given. Also apply what needs to be.

There are beautiful things that can be deduced from Genesis that, when looking at it from literal standpoint, cannot be seen.

For example, God made light before the sun and stars. This is exactly congruent to the Big Bang- there was light energy, and then matter condensed into stars much later.

But as I said, you cannot see these things from a literal perspective.

 

[juvenissun]

No, you are brainwashed. So save the rest of your argument.

We know it's true because mutations don't simply get canceled out by other mutations. They accumulate and consolidate. Do it enough times and what happens?
Oh yea, nothing. Do you know how illogical that is?

Furthermore,evolution takes a long time. If it happens in your lifetime, then the theory of evolution is false because ToE posits extreme amounts of time- starting over 3 billion years ago. Creationist arguments openly reveal that they are built on a false premise, with yours being no exception.

Human mutates. But human is still, and will be human.

Is this a good enough "evidence" for you?

 

[razeontherock]

With time, these augments (microevolution) accumulate, causing a visible change in the organism (macroevolution).

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

Talking past one another. Your stated definition of macroevolution is not accepted (nor used) by those on the other side of the aisle.

And it is problematic for those who oppose evolution, because it is virtually invincible logic. When enough time goes by, animals will change more and more until they resemble something else completely.

Anyways, the purpose of this thread is to talk about why so many Christians have a hard time with the evidence.

You have proffered a false argument. We have NO evidence of your statement I bolded, and that is the working definition of "macroevolution" that those on the other side of the aisle from you are using. (The evidence in existence simply makes the greater vision of the theory plausible)





You would sentence a criminal according to evidence, dress to the weather by what a forecaster evidences, etc. In fact, moastly all decisions you make is based on evidences.

Jesus uses the word ‘truth’ more then any other word in Scripture, and yet it seems like, for the sheer sake of being stubborn about Genesis, some Christians want to oppose ‘truth’ when it comes to science. Gravity is ‘just a theory’, but jump off a building and see what happens. In the same way, observe a kingdom of animals for a few million years and watch what happens.[/QUOTE]

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Talking past one another. Your stated definition of macroevolution is not accepted (nor used) by those on the other side of the aisle.

Drive a car. I have no evidence to suggest that the gas meter is going to go down the more you drive it outside of the simple observation that your car consumes gas for energy.
Since you deny that observation, there is absolutely no other evidence I can give to suggest that your car will eventually run out of gas.

That is how it is like to argue with creatioinists. Mutations occur, and then they keep occuring, and even then, they keep occuring. What happens to the body eventually? Does it stay the same?
It is a ridiculous claim which goes against basic physics. But for people who deny gravity as well, that isn't such a big deal, is it?

 

[jilfe]

Hello,
This seems to be where theistic evolutionists get messed up in atheistic evolution doctrins, they think that evolution is the cause rather than a created process in it's infancy.

Even if scientific data could show, macroevolution to be possible, it still did NOT happen yet, because according to Biblical record, ALL LIVING systems were created in the thousands of years ago, not in the millions.

So NO scientist, can prove that evolution has taken place, because there has NOT been enough time for this to have happen.

So therefore please, Scientists need to look at the created mechanisms of this process, that is true data, not man made theories, and work with it as God intended for it to be worked with, to use it to better the lives of people, through research of how it is beneficial, rather than to use it in a irresponsible nonscientific way of trying to use it as s a means of explaining the origins of life,

PLEASE understand that the origins of life was created supernaturally NOT scientifically, in all its maturity, never evolved, ONLY from that point in time, the so called macroevolutionary suystem, has been put in motion, NOT BEFORE the Biblicasl record of time when all living systems were created.

The Bible is very clear about this.
...
　
....
　
　

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Hello,
This seems to be where theistic evolutionists get messed up in atheistic evolution doctrins, they think that evolution is the cause rather than a created process in it's infancy.

Even if scientific data could show, macroevolution to be possible, it still did NOT happen yet, because according to Biblical record, ALL LIVING systems were created in the thousands of years ago, not in the millions.

So NO scientist, can prove that evolution has taken place, because there has NOT been enough time for this to have happen.

So therefore please, Scientists need to look at the created mechanisms of this process, that is true data, not man made theories, and work with it as God intended for it to be worked with, to use it to better the lives of people, through research of how it is beneficial, rather than to use it in a irresponsible nonscientific way of trying to use it as s a means of explaining the origins of life,

PLEASE understand that the origins of life was created supernaturally NOT scientifically, in all its maturity, never evolved, ONLY from that point in time, the so called macroevolutionary suystem, has been put in motion, NOT BEFORE the Biblicasl record of time when all living systems were created.

The Bible is very clear about this.
...
　
....
　
　

That's a bunch of nonsense. Theistic evolutionists do not belive in a young or semi-young Earth, hence why they separate themselves from YOUNG/OLD EARTH CREATIONISTS.

And drawing straws between science and what is supernatural is a false dillemma fallacy.

So, your complete misrepresentation is dually noted, put beside all the other montage of young earth arguments out there.

 

[toLiJC]

"the survival of the fittest" is a law of the jungle i.e. of the unrighteousness, while the Law of the true God is all humans to receive abundant life(John 12:50), that is why it is written:

Romans 15:1-4 "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

Blessings

 

[SilenceInMotion]

"the survival of the fittest" is a law of the jungle i.e. of the unrighteousness, while the Law of the true God is all humans to receive abundant life(John 12:50), that is why it is written:

Romans 15:1-4 "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

Blessings

What does that have to do with evolution allegedly being false, exactly?

 

[Godel]

The gas meter on your car will stay the same so long as you are not driving it. But the more you drive it, the more the meter will go from full to empty.

That is how evolution works- if the organism is under nurturing conditions, it will not change much. But put it in hazardous conditions where it starts to slowly mutate, and it will eventually become something else.

It is an observed mechanism of life. Just like the meter on your car is not simply going to stop when you drive it, so to does evolution not stop as mutations occur.

It is not only supported, but proven. The whole 'pics or didn't happen' argument is absurd.

It must be nice to win arguments by making claims without actually supporting any of it.