When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[Hieronymus]

No. This is not about a selfcorrecting mechanism. This is a direct refutation of a previous claim of yours:



The article states that the increase in infectivity increased by a factor of 17 000 over 20 generations.
And the code for the infecting protein, indeed wrote itself. Limitations or not, the prime message is; genes can write themselves through variation and natural selection.

No.
That's fantasy.

 

[Hieronymus]

Theistic Evolution shows us how God does what He does.

Hmmm... It lacks evidence, so i would say creation shows us God's handiwork.
Not sure though what God may have done with the fall and after the flood.
Genesis 6 implies God's adversary (and his mob) dabbled with genetics too, the Bible mentions these "giants" frequently.

Either way, it takes intelligence, which is obvious i.m.o., but not acceptable for naturalists, doesn't fit their models.

 

[Hieronymus]

Creationists already know that they just don't like it or want to believe it, so they try and lie to themselves, very few actually convince themselves but others just keep repeating the lies about evolution over and over again in the hope that they will perhaps eventually manage to believe them.

Cheap projection of own modus operandi.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No.
That's fantasy.

Many disagree. So you should use some evidence, reasoning and logic, not just make the assertion.

 

[Jimmy D]

Many disagree. So you should use some evidence, reasoning and logic, not just make the assertion.

Good luck with that.

And welcome back Hieronymus!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hmmm... It lacks evidence, so i would say creation shows us God's handiwork.
Not sure though what God may have done with the fall and after the flood.
Genesis 6 implies God's adversary (and his mob) dabbled with genetics too, the Bible mentions these "giants" frequently.

Either way, it takes intelligence, which is obvious i.m.o., but not acceptable for naturalists, doesn't fit their models.

So what about guided evolution, guided by an intelligent designer, yet still taking millions of years and all life still of common descent?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Alright,well that does put my argument away if it is true. However, I will accept that the passage is true only if an Agnostic/Atheist/Scientist of any denomination also weighs in and also offers an explanation in its favor. If we can get both sides of the debate to agree on the truth of something, then I'd be willing to wager that it's true. Does that seem fair?

If you believe in miracles, why would you care about having a scientific explanation to begin with? All powerful deity kinda trumps the need for that. The root of the matter is, no evidence for such a being, so you can't logically shove it in. But, the whole premise of Christianity kinda requires YHWH to be real. Heck, even if a person supports evolution, if they believe in YHWH, they probably would contend that said being could interfere with the process on a whim, even if it doesn't do so regularly. The Flood story's biggest weakness is that the exact dimensions of the ark are given, as well as most of the building materials and building process. The vessel is just too small and too fragile.

 

[Speedwell]

So what about guided evolution, guided by an intelligent designer, yet still taking millions of years and all life still of common descent?

So what about evolution, invented by an intelligent designer, which produces the result he desires without periodic tinkering?

 

[Hoghead1]

So what about evolution, invented by an intelligent designer, which produces the result he desires without periodic tinkering?

I don't think evolution would work without God continually intervening, luring us all on to new-found forms of beauty. All creativity demands a transcendent imagination or source of creative potentiality, i.e., God. Also, I think of God as evolving. I view creation as God's won self-evolution from unconsciousness and potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't think evolution would work without God continually intervening, luring us all on to new-found forms of beauty. All creativity demands a transcendent imagination or source of creative potentiality, i.e., God. Also, I think of God as evolving. I view creation as God's won self-evolution from unconsciousness and potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization.

Then what are the horrific results of the mutations bad enough to make living things suffer, but not bad enough to make them immediately die? What sort of guided hand is this deity providing, when there are conditions that make bone growth go so uncontrolled that sufferers become internally calcified "statues" and die before the age of 40 even with the best modern care throughout their whole life https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/fibrodysplasia-ossificans-progressiva# . Conditions that make skin tear like paper with every move https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/junctional-epidermolysis-bullosa . Inevitable comment: "but Sarah, those conditions are pretty rare, surely they would be more frequent if some benign deity weren't in control". First off, plenty of nasty genetic conditions aren't rare. Cystic fibrosis, for example. Secondly, why would such conditions be more common, when a lot of them kill people before the reproductive years? Evolution unguided will select against these conditions, which is why the autosomal dominant ones are usually caused by new mutations rather than running in families. In fact, if some benevolent being was guiding human evolution to our benefit, the frequency of autosomal recessive genetic diseases should be going down. What they are actually doing is going up, because modern medicine allows for these people to live longer, and thus even people with the conditions can live long enough to have kids, which inevitably will be carriers of the disease allele if not sufferers of the condition as well.

What can live to reproduce successfully is what moves on to the next generation, not what is good for just survival. Do you think it benefits the survival of a male bird to be brightly colored? No, it makes it way easier for predators to see them. But since their reproductive chances would be pretty much zero thanks to sexual selection if they weren't brightly colored, the disadvantageous to survival trait persists. In nature, it doesn't matter if you survive but don't reproduce. What benevolent being would allow this? It's the embodiment of vanity for a trait that is bad for survival to persist because of shallow decisions based on physical appearance.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think evolution would work without God continually intervening, luring us all on to new-found forms of beauty.

That is certainly an interesting position.

I may have used this quote earlier, so forgive me if this is repetitive.

It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."

— Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)​

At least in my view, the more powerful deity is the one who is so skilled that he can create laws which can produce the universe we see right now without any intervention. The less powerful deity is the one who has to constantly intervene. However, that's just my view.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So what about evolution, invented by an intelligent designer, which produces the result he desires without periodic tinkering?

That would explain those pesky broken vitamin c genes we share with other primates . . . .

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't believe in miracles.That's why I requested a scientific explanation.

There aren't any that favor the flood story. In fact, multiple aspects of it have been disproven. It's possible that the story is based off of a localized flood, and how an extended family survived it with animals on a smaller scale riding along with them for a couple of weeks, but as the story is written, it would be impossible without having something like magic interfering.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agree that it was likely a localized flood. It was likely caused by the meltwater from the glaciers formed in the most recent ice age.The water caused the sea levels to rise to what they were originally,and then when they kept on rising they finally flooded into the Black Sea region ( Not exclusively,but the flood story would in all probability be based off of the flooding of that region since the rest of the bible takes place there.) causing what seemed like a flood of the entire world to the uneducated humans of that time. The flood story is all a matter of perspective. However, I was more requesting an explanation for animals that are carnivorous somehow managing to subsist off of plants. Are there any ways that carnivores could survive for even a few weeks off of just plants?

Sure, if they are biologically omnivores, and developed more specialized carnivore digestive tracts and teeth after the flood. The bible implies carnivory didn't exist prior to the flood.

 

[-57]

Sure, if they are biologically omnivores, and developed more specialized carnivore digestive tracts and teeth after the flood. The bible implies carnivory didn't exist prior to the flood.

Sharp teeth couldn't have had other purposes?

 

[-57]

I agree that it was likely a localized flood. It was likely caused by the meltwater from the glaciers formed in the most recent ice age.The water caused the sea levels to rise to what they were originally,and then when they kept on rising they finally flooded into the Black Sea region ( Not exclusively,but the flood story would in all probability be based off of the flooding of that region since the rest of the bible takes place there.) causing what seemed like a flood of the entire world to the uneducated humans of that time. The flood story is all a matter of perspective. However, I was more requesting an explanation for animals that are carnivorous somehow managing to subsist off of plants. Are there any ways that carnivores could survive for even a few weeks off of just plants?

The fruit bat.....quite a concept.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sharp teeth couldn't have had other purposes?

When you have to argue that huge carnivorous dinosaurs ate fruit, you know that you are on the wrong side of the argument.

 

[-57]

When you have to argue that huge carnivorous dinosaurs ate fruit, you know that you are on the wrong side of the argument.

I suppose you're entitled to that unsupported opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

I suppose you're entitled to that unsupported opinion.

More than opinion. It's based on evidence of predation in dinosaurs.

http://www.arca.museus.ul.pt/ArcaSite/obj/gaia/MNHNL-0000778-MG-DOC-web.PDF

 

[-57]

More than opinion. It's based on evidence of predation in dinosaurs.

http://www.arca.museus.ul.pt/ArcaSite/obj/gaia/MNHNL-0000778-MG-DOC-web.PDF

I have no problem with dinos eating meat prior to the flood. What I showed you was that animals can have sharp teeth NOT used for eating meat.